I think Technophilic Pronatalism via "demographic competition" might be a way out of depopulation or population decline or population collapse. By Demographic Competition; i mean fiercely competing with others e.g. families, ethnic groups, countries, etc via having more children e.g. aiming for higher and higher fertility rates & birth rates and the selection pressures over time would favour more demographically competitive people to come out on top and more children. Anyways what do you think?
The time spent becoming educated is a big factor that needs to be considered. It consumes so much of our lives from childhood to adulthood. Its incredibly common for people to not have time for relationships growing up, or for it to be discouraged by parents and teachers so children can focus on school. A lot of people end up in their mid twenties with no romantic experience and no idea how to get into one. Adult working life doesnt exactly leave one with much free time either
Couldn't agree more, and a lot of stuff that is taught to kids (at least in our country) could be reduced significantly. A lot of it is just useless information that you can find at anytime.
@@darrak1 Let's be honest, the public education systems exists more as a free daycare for parents to be able to work and engage in the economy than a true place where one can recieve education. I think half of the time spent in school from ages 6 to 18 could be removed without much change in academic results
Education is a major problem, it either needs to be heavily reformed (which won't happen, there aren't enough people with the skills to run a better version), or abolished (just in terms of state mandated education), which would work better for some than others, like anything.
@@NaderBerbish Bro has never realized the ripple effects that stem from a select few elite men taking more than one partner on the genetically/mentally inferior men of society who will inevitably cause an incel uprising and destroy nations entire economies. Monogamy is the only answer.
I've got 2 babies at the same time (twins), what is quite a challenge haha. We moved from a capital city to a much smaller town. A price for apartment is like 2 - 2.5 less than in Warsaw. I work remotely, so I don't have to commute. The apartment we bought is not only affordable, but also in the city centre. Everything is in walkable distance. There's also a nice park. If I had to live in a big city, it wouldn't be possible. I couldn't buy anything decent in Warsaw
I would add 2 more causes: -Popular culture showing upper middle class as a averege/median. To achieve this people cut costs - biggest cost is "next child". -retirement systems nationalise profists of having children (only age and years of work matters).
@@krtst You can not just produce children - they have to be usefull to society by working - My solution: -equal pension for all, -restriction that pensioners cannot be in higher number than citizens with a maximum age of 18. -retirement would be in terms of who is older, but added to the age of future retiree would be 15% of his length of service and his decendents, but one could not retire at an actual age less than 80% of current life expectancy. This system is untouchable even with bad demographics, unlike today's system with a rigid retirement age, which will collapse due to the fact that fewer and fewer workers will have to support a single retiree. More over I would add that retirees should not have active voting rights, becouse they with should-to-be-pensioners under previus system will vote change back like in Poland in 2015 after retirement age rises from 65 to 57 for men and 60 to 67 in 2011 (it was incremental rise, not one huge jump "over night"). Want to vote? Don't live at the expense of your fellow citizens. In Poland, previous government (this one which reverse rise of retirement age) bought votes for "13th and 14th pension" (ofc it was sent few week before elections) - pensioners are 25% of all voters, but 50% of former ruling party's voters. IMO lack of this safety guard will result in reversing changes if any country implement it.
@@krtst You can not just produce children - they have to be usefull to society by working - My solution: -equal pension for all, -restriction that pensioners cannot be in higher number than citizens with a maximum age of 18. -retirement would be in terms of who is older, but added to the age of future retiree would be 15% of his length of service and his decendents, but one could not retire at an actual age less than 80% of current life expectancy. This system is untouchable even with bad demographics, unlike today's system with a rigid retirement age, which will collapse due to the fact that fewer and fewer workers will have to support a single retiree. More over I would add that retirees should not have active voting rights, becouse they with should-to-be-pensioners under previus system will vote change back like in Poland in 2015 after retirement age rises from 65 to 57 for men and 60 to 67 in 2011 (it was incremental rise, not one huge jump "over night"). Want to vote? Don't live at the expense of your fellow citizens. In Poland, previous government (this one which reverse rise of retirement age) bought votes for "13th and 14th pension" (ofc it was sent few week before elections) - pensioners are 25% of all voters, but 50% of former ruling party's voters. IMO lack of this safety guard will result in reversing changes if any country implement it.
@@Khneefer ok, let I try. Retirement system should reward proportionally: 1) Children number 2) Children number who paid taxes in this country. 3) Simple fixed percent of overall children tax How do u think?
We may have to come to terms with the fact that the current economic model simply isn't child friendly. If you look at the numbers, birth rates have been falling for 200 years. (Europe specifically) 1800 - 6, 1900 - 4 by 1970 it is around 2.3 (some countries already below replacement) This is before mass immigration, expensive housing, dating apps or birth control. Make of that what you will.
People get used not to live in squalor. Nigerian mothers are popping 6 children each. And I’m not envious. New civilization will emerge and fall. Baby Boomers were an exception and we built a world around them.
The single most important reason is liberation of women, whether we like it or not. Women were sacrificing their lives in the past in order to birth the next generation of humans. Now they can choose not to do that, so we will never have enough women deciding to have children in order for birth rates to stabilize. Add to that materialism and lack of religion, where we would all rather choose to live a lavish and comfy lifestyle over sacrifice for someone else and you get what we have right now. People who breed will inherit the Earth, and things will stabilize eventually.
Yes Spengaler noted this as did other famous commentators of the time. Pepeole thought it would be fixed but it got worse. If you take the videos theams you will notice Feminism and lack of releigion have increased for 200 years. Laws changed to allow abortions and creat birth control in my life time. Women ecoraged to become full time workers. Mums are called losers by some in my society. Each event drove down the birth rate. Cost of living events that happen every few years lowers the birth rate each time they happen. Sometimes causing a crash. Welcome to the end.
Our ancestors who lived in squalor compared to the developed world had loads of kids, so it cant be the economy. Notice how you said the last 200 years, it coincides with the rise of rights for a certain gender.
The cause of civilizations' success is usually the same as its decline. We industrialized, urbanized, and radically changed our culture. This allowed for massive growth, but is now the reason for our downfall.
I live in Brazil. What I see is that most people doesn't like kids at all. The ones who do, are having children, despite the difficulties. I think if you completely remove "accidental pregnancy" (dont believe such thing) from Brazil, it would have the lowest fertility rate in the world
@@moneylineparlay105It's because of extreme liberalism. People think of Brazil as some extremely Catholic country, but it's been under the rule of hardcore athiest communists for decades up until the recent 2000's. That's left its impact.
Brazilian here. If you think rationally, having kids is just A LOT of work. As a man, I definitely do not have a high "paternal" instinct, a NEED to have kids. I have a NEED to have sex, but nature got screwed when humanity invented highly effective contraceptives. Now I can have my sex without unexpectedly reproducing. And I have a lot of sex, with a lot of different females. IF, it was 100 years ago, I could impregnate lots of women and do not get financially ruined. But in the 21st cemtury, with enforced paternity tests and a judiciary that will go after you, nah, no kids for me. It's not religion, it's just an IQ test. Smart people can see that having kids is a net negative from an individidual liberty point of view. Tbe dumb ones will keep reproducing, and Idiocracy will come sooner rather than later. Tbe future will not be Star Trek.
@@moneylineparlay105 this is an exageration. The way data is collect in Brazil is joke. The research institutes got everything wrong in every election, it is already a meme. I dont see the high number of LGTV+ people in my my daily life.
For the Feminism part, I think urbanization and destructing local communities caused this situation. Nobody wants to be stay-home wife in isolated nuclear families. I think local communities used to be somewhat female territories where they can be a part of a society and brag about how their children are doing well. By destroying local communities, women lost their society and had no other choice but to compete with men on the same field. IMO Feminism is just a superficial symptom of the situation we have cooked for centuries, and that was initiated by urbanization and destruction of local communities.
Good take, I think you're really on to something here. People, perhaps women especially, have a need for a community that exists outside of work. The erosion of community helps no one
Allow me to simplify - attention in all its forms is what women desire above most other things. Women will gravitate to what supplies the most attention. Men are similar but instead of attention we desire sex, and will gravitate towards what achieves that result best. These two motivating factors when superimposed atop both genders behaviors makes things a lot clearer and simplified. Moreover educating women and allowing them to have jobs only guaranteed the fact they, women, have the means to place themselves into the areas (ubran areas) to then garner their one truest desire, attention.
@@TheAzurefang yes np, the chad community is being built, sub5 human annihilation is being taken care of too, 1-2 century and all of them will be dead in their basements. All hail chad! All hail chad! All hail chad! All hail chad?
Exactly, women used to have a neighbourhood community they could rely on. Need someone to take care of your kids for a night out with your husband? Your neighbour will help! Then you return the favour and so forth.
We need grandparents to help like the old days. People today want to spend their retirement traveling and don’t want to help out with the grandkids. My grandmothers worked, their mothers before worked. You know who took care of the children back then? The grandparents, grand aunts and uncles. People had many children because they had help at home, They were poor so it was not because of money.
Yes, yes. Move in with your parents, and be ready look after your senile great grandpa like the old days. You will get help from your grandfolks in return.
@@traumvonhaiti I am not even 30 yet and my grandparents are either dead or already incapable of looking after a child. My extended family ceased to exist because of greed (inheritance). the only older family members I have left are my mother and my uncle (alcoholic). Yeah doesnt look that bright for me.
@@ralfrudiger7276 I don’t have help from either grandparents of my 3 kids. One pair live far away, the other pair simply don’t want to help out. It’s hard taking care of them and balancing work and the kids sick days. Help would very much be appreciated but we get none. Still, we’re doing it and planning a 4th. Anyway, I plan on being there for my kids one day to help out. I want them to go to work and not worry about the kids. I don’t want work to be an excuse for not having kids. I will try to make life easier for them, because I know how hard it is without outside help in this day and age.
@@LouisMotathe older people get, the harder work looking after children becomes.I didn't ask one set of grandparents to babysit often as it was too much for them, and then only for an hour or two. The other grandparent worked full time, and it's not fair asking them to give up work to raise my child. I know when it's my turn to be a grandparent, I won't be able to look after a child all day. The arthritis,thyroid and peri menopause problems are bothering me enough as it is.
Many of my friends can't find a girlfriend for years, many have given up. They want to have children, but when it's physically impossible it's hard to talk about higher fertility. Every young woman flees to the BIG5 (I'm from Poland, BIG5 = 5 largest cities), small and medium cities consist of old people, fewer and fewer young children and bachelors who start drinking more and more as they get older. And in big cities, these women's demands grow to absurd proportions. Many of these women complain all the time because a tall, rich, handsome guy won't fulfill her instagram dream. I have no more hope for my mates, it's over.
Gościu dokładnie tak jest. Po studiach wróciłem do małego miasteczka i nikogo tu nie ma. Same apteki, lumpeksy i supermarkety. Do dużego miasta mnie nie ciągnie bo słabe zarobki. Załatwiłem sobie pracę w delegacjach po całym świecie i 20 koła wyciągam. Co z tego że nie ma gdzie tego wydawać.
@@billusher2265 Well, it looks like we are back to polygamy. The problem is that our entire lives, laws ,economies have been built on the assumption that monogamy is the only right doctrine. When I was still studying it was common for one handsome guy to have 5 girlfriends and the rest pretended it was ok. Strange times ahead.
“The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of ‘mutual understanding.” It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady’s who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine’s who “belongs to herself” - they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful. The same fact, in conjunction with the same arguments, is to be found in the Alexandrian, in the Roman and, as a matter of course, in every other civilized society - and conspicuously in that in which Buddha grew up.” - Oswald Spengler
Ironically, Spengler didn't have any children. If I remember correctly, he also commented that intelligence at its peak would reason its way into extinction. I don't know if he got these ideas from earlier texts and sayings, from his own reasoning, or a mixture of both, but it's clear that he was mostly- if not totally- right.
The more men blame feminism for the decrease in natality, the more the decrease will accelerate. It's only the ones who learn to understand women who breed. They are out there and usually married by 35,at latest.
@@NightinGal89 idk if any of that stuff is true if the most fertile populations, historically and in modern times, tend towards patriarchal social values.
@@shezyam460 I think he means that in a modern society, understanding women will significantly increase a man's likelihood of breeding. And as was noted in this video, there is no way to recreate a pre-modern society (barring some kind of collapse).
@@adampeters9861 i agree with that specific point, which i should have mentioned previously. i'm more in the camp of there being an unstoppable decline though, regardless of whether men and women understand each other or not.
For the women part, where you said that societal survival is also in question I will just quote one female who posted an answer to my qeustion regard this exact thing: "Nah. Even if the species was to extinct, I wouldn't make kids. In fact, I WISH for human extinction. The advancement of humanity was the worst thing to happen to this planet." I think her comment perfectly shows what most of modern feminists think when qeustion of induvial right vs survival of the species pops up.
Women are not to be taken very seriously at all, they usually don't know the first thing of what they are talking about, men stand by causes, women use them against other women, either to status signal, sabotage or force uniformity, if you treat them like serious people they will think less of you. The trick is to have their best intentions for them, that is you forward their actual interests (feeling secure, having lots of babies and being able to one up other women) on their behalf, all the ideological stuff would be windowdressing if not given hard power by the legal system and the resentful advice of other women. People who demand respect are pathetic, and should be treated as such, otherwise they are emboldened.
With right propaganda action, one would be able to influence women's minds. Additionally, there will always be (probably) a group of people with high fertility rate so I wouldn't be too afraid of becoming extinct.
My great-grandmothers were highly literate, they all had more than five children, one had eight. Their parents left their religious faith before they were born. Maybe we're the exception.
@@SniperDizzyJohnythat's really bad. I hope your sister will change her mind, if you don't mind me saying this. There's nothing better in this world then to have children
Honestly I wish the US and Europe were more like East Asia in certain regards. While you can come back from population collapse eventually, immigration and ethnic dilution are far more permanent and damaging…
Tell the population decline stuff to Ireland. They've still not recovered from the famines that were over 170 years ago. In a hundred years Japan, China, and Korea will be in a similar state having not recovered from their population collapses.
I feel one of the main points often missed out by the right is the fact that children, from an economic standpoint are seen as a low-value commodity with an extremely high capex and opex in tandem with the wide availability of birth control & contraceptives AND the increasing literacy/educational rates of women. Once women are liberated from their traditional roles as homemakers and given the choice of wanting more or fewer kids, the fertility rate straight up plummets. As a society's GDP increases and the citizens become richer, higher and more expensive standards arise as people demand better quality of life for themselves and their children which propels a cascade of constantly increasing prices of complex services which in turn also come into play whenever prospective parents think about having children. TL;DR people think children are low-value commodities
@delusion2987 no, there is only the illusion that they are. The need for children to support you in your old age is still there, but the illusion that it isn't due things lime retirement plans and welfare have obscured this. People simplify lack the ability to think long term and/or lack the ability to think about what happens if the majority acts like they do.
Children may be the future but money saved right now is more valuable. Why deprive yourself of resources right now and lose the opportunity to build wealth yourself? Instead, you can count on your neighbor's kids to fund your retirement. On strictly material terms, being selfish is the best decision. And of course, nobody chooses to have kids, so there is no future for anyone. That's the classic Tragedy of the Commons.
@@No0dz As you put it since too many choose not to have kids the future will be the population collapse and ruin for many. Imagine as well that community who have kids decide not to pay for elderly of other communities. That is a bad scenario that could happen. All communities for themselves !
@@sebsebski2829 Yes, they were in an evolutionary match, living in villages consisting of of 200 people top. They were almost entirely agrarian. They had harsh winters and needed childern as labour on farms and for soldiers against constant Turkic attacks from the east. They had high mortality salience and they were extremely religious, to the point that they saw themselves as Christians first and Muscovites / Russians second.
@@zorandusic7079 Yes, but dont forget to add that their economic condition were much worse than ours. So economy isnt the issue, its the gender opposite of men. As long as theyre taught that motherhood is the best for them, they will be mothers, as soon as its not they will run like headless chickens.
@@BuckNut-ck1sl You're forgetting about mortality salience, if there isn't constant death around to remind people of their own mortality, they will refuse to take serious and pivotal windows of opportunities as critically as they need to.
@DutifulCommentsWell, it also wasn't a big deal breaker when very likely the bastard child, if found to be such, could easily die of natural and "natural" causes and no one would bat an eye.
Under every video about birthrates I see normies claiming that life is just too expensive these days to have more kids. And while I'm sure increased housing prices have played some role, it's just an obvious red herring. Why, if the problem is not having enough money, would it be all the richest countries on earth that have the lowest fertility and all the poorest countries that have the highest? It's purely a matter of what people are choosing to spend their money on, and in richer countries they have many more options. Anecdotally, among the (depressingly many) young women I talk to who say they don't want kids, not a single one has said the reason is because they're too expensive.
If you kept developed country kids at undeveloped country kids levels, you would be imprisoned for a while. Poor people have to neglect healthcare and food. Try that in a developed country and you'll be in prison for child neglect or abuse. It costs much more to have a kid in a developed country even in a poor part of a developed country.
And yet Boomers keep suggesting that we need to throw money and "incentives" at the problem, ironically if you took from and impoverished everyone that would incentivize them to reproduce, Darwinian conditions corrects, not money.
People in the poorest don’t even have birth control. Either they can’t afford it or have no education about it meaning every time a couple does the deed there is a chance of pregnancy. If you have access to birth control which most people in the world do now, you can choose when to have kids and plan for them financially.
@tann_man regardless of the increased cost of living, Western living standards are unequivocally better than Niger. There is a reason the West absorbs millions of African immigrants.
All of these are influencing factors. The collapse however, is about the meaning of life. A survey of DESIRED fertility among female Chinese college students found an average desire of 1.0 child/woman. This is before personal finances can even prevent births, so the actual fertility rate will be much lower than even 1.0. The US in 2007 was literate, urbanized, ~secular, and feministic, and yet had above-replacement fertility. Israel as well. It's about belief in life path. My father is a very anti-natalist, 'humans have ruined everything' type of guy, yet he has two kids. "We are animals, its what we do." My brother firmly believes he will never have children, he claims he is escaping his fate as an animal, in a sort of transhumanist way. He sees having children as unsustainable. Most of the youth see endless consumption, whether experiential (out on the town), or of the endless media that is digitally available as a satisfactory mode of life. Some of my (intelligent) friends with health problems think their genes aren't worth passing on, others think they would be incapable of raising a child. The primary difference between now and then is that then, humans were the most interesting feature of your world. You went outside, talked to women, had sex, had children, then had to take care of them. Now it is all optional. Add to this the fact that internet-raised children tend to be avoidant and risk-adverse, porn provides a risk-free alternative outlet for sexual desire, social media inflation of standards etc. etc. I can say confidently that the urban-leftist zoomers of America will have a fertility rate below 1.0. I think 0.6 for this group is quite likely. The Christian conservatives that retain the cultural value of raising children may sustain the overall rate at above 1.0. Its all about culture, about what you believe is possible and good for your life. The media culture of modernity has turned the masses against reproduction.
The risk aversion and obsessive planning is a huge deal I swear. There are so many young people that literally do not want to do anything in the "real world".
The tax on childlessness was a natalist policy imposed in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries, starting in the 1941. Joseph Stalin's regime created the tax in order to encourage adult people to reproduce, thus increasing the number of people and the population of the Soviet Union. The 6% income tax affected men from the age of 25 to 50, and women from 20 to 45 years of age.The tax remained in place until the collapse of the Soviet Union. This propaganda communist policy made the Soviet Union's birth rate always between 2.6-2,3 during the period 1960 -1990 . And the Soviet Union was the first country in the world to legalize abortion in 1918 .But then abortion was Ban again in 1933 as a result of the birth rate dropping from 7.0 (1920) to 4.0 (1930) .After the tax on chilliness was implemented (1941). Abortion was legalized again in 1955.
The tax doesn't work well, there had been such measures taken as far back as the Roman Participate and it didn't do much except delay the crash. Romania is a better example I think, as far as I know the ban on abortion there was lifted in 1990 after Ceaușescu's removal
@@orthodox-mp6hvRomania's birth rate in 1966 was 1.90 after the abortion ban policy. The birth rate rose to 3.66 in 1967 and then fell and stabilized at 2.3-2.5. until the policy was closed in 1990 and the brith rate collapsed again. but this proves that communism policies were successful in preventing population collapse in 1970.
@@orthodox-mp6hv All countries hope to get the sweet position of a birth rate of 2.3-2.5, not too high so that there is overpopulation and not low so that immigrants are needed to cover the shortfall.
Your first point is wrong! You could just as easily have claimed that the birth rate has fallen because women now also wear pants. Being able to read and write does not reduce the birth rate. Otherwise this would have already happened in Europe in the 19th century when compulsory education was introduced. But that didn't happen; on the contrary, the population in Europe grew enormously back then. It was urbanization that brought this about. Suddenly, it was expensive to have children and there was no benefit to having them as there was in the countryside where they could help with the work and you could have enough food for them by growing your own food. However, the mechanization of agriculture and the use of fertilizers meant that far fewer people were needed for food production than before. However, the poor African countries have not yet taken this step, or only partially.
As a civil engineer listening to the "urbanist community" on youtube boils my blood. They are purely motivated by their hatred of cars and spitefulness. It has always been obvious that you don't have to go into logical extremes like american soulless suburbia or cage flats from hongkong. It is actually possible to construct nice liveable towns with decent public transport and that also have medium population density, you can just cleverly place buildings.
They hate cars because they give people options against the Left transit unions, and allow people to live outside the Left run cities. Are you starting to see a pattern here?
I live in Germany and "make" €80.000/yr gross. Half of my paycheck goes to rent which went up 20% every 3 years, the other half goes to groceries, and utilities which keep rising every month or sometimes every trip to the grocery store. I have no car, no cell phone plan (prepaid €10/mo if I want to use it), and I am barely able to save, certainly not enough to buy my own place one day with my family. Something has to give.
German here, 3 children, all grown ups. € 80.000 gross? In my prime with five to six jobs ( retired now, former main job second highest rank prof combined with several short time engagements as a lecturer) I made ca. 100.000.- gross p.a. Thats a lot of money even if you are not married. So something has gone wrong with your lifestyle/ housing. If you make, say, 50.000 net and half of that goes into rent you actually pay ca. € 2080.- per month for rent. And that is insane. Living alone for two decades I pay for a not too small (two living rooms) apartment in central downtown in a 70000 inhabitants city in NDS ca. € 800.- plus 115.- for a parking lot in a public parking house ( the lattter being far too much).
@@GotMyTowel42I think there are solutions to this issue, my country came into positive birth rates when our government had a “baby bonus”, but after it was canceled my country slipped back into sub replacement territory, if the mormons in Utah can have such high birth rates, so can the general population if we encourage and incentivise certain traits.
@@Mick_Unfiltered The Mormons and the Hassidic Jews have a lot of children as mandated by their faith, they do not question. It's all a matter of ideology, the current widespread ideology is extremely anti-natalist.
I dont like when people say american birth rates are failing to things like no martinery leave, or no free child care, because many countries have those things and still have falling birth rates. all 1st world countries have falling birth rates.
@@litinup So back to the medieval times ? Only the clerus or those of blue blood or some rich merchants are able to read and the rest is just illiterate and lives in poverty but knows the bible very well thorugh the clerus?
@@jirislavicek9954If you want a population that has almost no secular education and is probably going to end up xenophobic and limit human rights with garbage living standards and a high fertility rate. then Christianity for the win ✝️ At least inflation won’t be a major issue anymore, but damn do you gotta sacrifice a ton of stuff Christianity may make people happy to feel connected to god and have some sense of purpose, It will most likely mean that kids will weirdly enough be extremely happy despite awful living standards So religion will make everyone insanely poor and happy with a sense of purpose
Never made enough money to get married, much less have children. I'm in my early 60s with a BA and I've worked most of my life. My sister has done better, but she never got married, either, she teaches at a public school and has an MFA and national teaching certificate. She's worn her body out. She's had surgery for bone spurs, had a knee replacement, and had surgery on one of her shoulders; she's always in pain now at 60. If you want more children, you have to pay people substantially more and make sure there's enough decent jobs out there. My sister wants to retire at 65, I plan to keep working into my 70s.
"Never made enough money to get married" You do not need to make money to get married. "you have to pay people substantially more" This is exactly what has been done all over Europe and it has failed.
@@algernonsidney8746 False, it has never been tried in Europe. What has been tried in Europe is suppressing wages and job opportunities through mass immigration and paying peanuts as incentives to have children that won't even cover the costs of the child's first year expenses.
It's not about money at all. It's about culture, family structure and ties, and what is valued (evidently fleeting consumerist pleasures are more valued than children or family). It's about finite time to spend on things. Many chose career or education or entertainment or even frivolous dating/sex over spending time with their existing family, much less creating another. Distractions. You always had enough to build a family, since almost anyone can live very well by historical standards, and even if that weren't the case you only truly need the necessities which is also trivial in our time. You perhaps don't have enough by what you assume you need according to peers and media, but even that is questionable given everyone else is under the same influences and most still end up having children. Does it make sense for the individual to not sacrifice for others (children)? Perhaps, perhaps not. Since a large family with strong ties to oneanother is a considerable economic advantage in its own right and will be even more so in the future when things decline. Perhaps you are right in a sense, since people with weak or small families don't pool resources or gift labour within the family (e.g. for childrearing or jobs that instead someone is hired for at great cost). Personally, I think the lack of valuing children and family society-wide also says something very dire about people's psychology and character, which has broader implications. But paying people literally does nothing. Hell, most people don't even save/invest enough because of lifestyle creep. Fact is the culture is basically just vulgar consumerism that scales to income.
The only solution for this is to disconnect the younger generation's contribution from having to pay taxes for the elder that is not their family. Otherwise, the younger will never accrue money for themselves nor have enough for their children and the problem will get worse and worse. The childless elder will not care as they will have no personal investment in society... they will vote for their own interests at the cost of other people's families. Finally, we need propaganda: "This is the loneliness and personal disaster that happen if you put job first and forget your family." Otherwise this will keep happening again and again every generation.
Arranged marriage and the total destruction of social liberalism, money is less of a factor, though pensions and welfare are stealing by the childless.
@@vorynrosethorn903 The moral question is still on the table: If it is not good to have children for them to care for me, then why it is ok to require other people's children to do the same?
@@ppp-vz1mi A lot of pro-population policy has not been working so far, probably because social and civil inertia. But as society relies on an ever -shrinking working population, that policy will probably be paramount, especially if implemented collectively rather than individual incentives.
Personally, I think the main reason for falling birthrates is not even religion or house prices but simply women rights. And before someone starts hating on me, no I don't want to take women rights that's just my observation I think is true. In the past when women were basically assets owned by families to marry to a rich guy and were expected to be housewives raising kids there was no issue with birthrates and even if urbanization lowered fertility, it still stayed on above replacement level. Families played a major role, and houses were often multi-generational with all kids and marriages being a family affair. Women were also under massive pressure to have kids and have a husband otherwise she would be seen as a failure and ostracized. But ever since women rights started ramping up, women began to take active part in the workforce the whole social contract fell apart. Children are no longer seen as "wealth of the family" but more like a burden and financial responsibility, women that take part in carrier buildings don't even think about having kids and I don't blame them really. There is no reason to have one and it's almost like a hobby now to have a kid and it's like 80% only 1 kid which still is below replacement level. There are no longer family multi-generational wealth building, parents basically tell kids to fuck off at 18yo and go rent some small room in a city for 60% of your wage when back then the whole family would unconditionally help you raise kids. When women are most fertile between 16-30 and historically at this age were popping out kids are not spending their time on work while after 30 they become ticking biological bomb with each year increasing a chance of autism or some fucked up disability for their potential childbirth and are running out of eggs. I don't know what really the solution for that is, but the whole system is just dysfunctional at it's core and almost anti-natural. Add to that ultra feminist movements and mainstream narrative of children being the worst burden and making a childless woman into some symbol of power which makes things even worse. At this point even is some schizo would take women rights away they would still not have any kids anyway, it's just a completely different way of thinking and no matter with how much money you shower them with they will just not change. And if I were a woman, I would probably don't want any kid either to be honest. You can even see it in 3rd world countries that also have falling birthrates, it's not as if they stopped being poor it's just simply that they got some access to the internet and mobile network with women seeking work carrier mindset getting to them, so the birthrate is falling there too. For now developed countries help themselves by import whoever they can, but at some point, fertility will drop below replacement level everywhere and there will be no one to import. Then I think we will start see serious discussion about artificial wombs and state run raising facilities to keep the economy growing and at that point humanity alive. And China will most likely be the first one to do that.
Lol ticking time bomb of tism. Bro nothing happens if women have children over 30. My neighbor had a healthy son at 45. Having kids at 33 is even more safer.
@@rgonzalo511 That's why I said it increases the chances and there will still be healthy babies born after 30. But then literally every research shows how bad on average it gets after 30.
@@GoodieMartin It actually doesn't get that much more bad. The increase is only about 1-3 percent if I remember correctly. So technically yeah there's an increase but in practice it's minimal
@@rgonzalo511You got the stats wrong by an order of magnitude, it's 10% to 30% I disagree that taking women's rights away will not solve the problem. It is clear women, given the choice, will not have enough children to maintain society. Unfortunately, society cannot allow for that choice, because it brings us to the situation we're in now. Yes, it's nice that women have rights, and they should, but if they do, then society will crumble. That's one of the many problems we have in modern civilization. Sacrifice civilization for women's freedom, or sacrifice women's freedom for civilization. I think simply not allowing women to work (or making it extremely difficult or limited) would be the best solution. Something like forcing companies to pay women a much higher wage than men should do the trick. This'll make it so outlier women can be productive, while the average women would have little choice other than pick a good man and stay at home to create a family. What do you think bro?
When the population inevitably crashes, cost of living will crash with it, houses will become cheaper, the job market will become less competitive, then because life will become easier, people will start having lots of kids again, and then the cycle shall repeat itself.
Not that simple at all, most resources are owned at the top, the corps will buy it all up before you can make the capital. Also you will be crushed to pay for the elderly, and the society will be sectarian due to immigration. In short the solution is not patience.
the problem right now isn't that there's not enough room in countries for houses. Its that houses have become a speculative investment instead of just a commodity. So homeowners and massive real estate companies want to see the prices of their property to increase - and one way to achieve that is to block the construction of new housing. And a good portion of the population (the homeowners) are incentivized to not do anything to encourage housing, as anybody within the real estate system directly benefits from it becoming more expensive. Personally I think the most likely "resolution" to this problem will arrive once the Western governments become too corrupt and incompetent to prevent people from building slums on land they don't own.
@@freddy4603 Lending / banks / insurance is a sure way to create a massive gap between pricing and reality. Since everyone can get a home through lending, it encourages lenders and constructors to compete for higher, not lower prices, since the amount of money a person has over a period of multiple decades is much more than what they'd have in the moment of a home purchase. This is also the problem with college and health costs. Due to lending (college) and insurance (Healthcare), the institutions providing education and health are encouraged to raise prices constantly, because they are separated from the consumer's money through the cumulative wealth of lenders. If there was no such thing as a mortgage, the housing industry would be forced to find ways to lower prices through increasing supply or cost efficiency. If there were no college loans, then higher education would be forced to find ways to lower the cost, again, through increasing supply or cost efficiency. Lastly, if insurance were not a thing, then all industries which typically gain most of their profits from insurance payouts would also be forced to lower their costs to adjust to consumer demands.
IMO, In the US, for the most part, when the US was mostly rural, children were an asset: they contributed labor. As people migrated to cities children became a liability as they were not needed to contribute labor.
You forgot to mention the key point: cost of living is high. It's expensive to raise children, especially if only one (the man) has to pay for it all. Hence, women kinda have to work in order to have an average living standard. And then we can go back to the dichotomy between women in the work force and time for taking care of children.
my grandmother was educated (yes in 1940s) and had 5 kids my mom was educated and had 3 kids my sisters have 0 and my peers want children with a wealthy man only. It is not the literacy that's changing mentalities.
As for car-dependent, un-walkable suburbia consists of single family homes, I think it does help raising fertility rate, but only for one generation. Living in such suburbia as a child who can't drive is, miserable. I suspect such children are more likely to move to urban area after graduating high school and some of them never go back to suburbia, at least, this is the case for me. In summary, while car-dependent suburbia can boost fertility rate, it also can boost urbanization. IMO making suburbia un-walkable (it's ok to be car-centric though) can really inhibit suburbia from retaining population and communities in there.
I think you're right. It gives you the space necessary for having more kids but it strips livability, community, and is too expensive so most children grow up isolated and eventually find a job and an apartment in a city
This, right here, is absolutely 100% spot on. I didn’t grow up in a suburbia but I grew up in a rural area that required you to drive for at least 15 to 30 minutes if you wanted to go anywhere. This is one of the main reasons why I’m gonna be leaving the U.S. for Switzerland in 6 months, I just can’t live in a car dependent society.
also these suburbia kids are extremely shy and weird. compared to eastern european kids who colab outside. at least it was back then. now with this computers i guess even babushkas stay at home..
I met my wife at university. I´m 32, she´s 30. We have two children 4 and one year old in germany. I study social sciences and wondered a lot about what the main problems are. Men and Women at large are going in opposite directions politically, in terms of activities and also in values. Third places are EXTREMELY needed. Places like churches, meetup places for students like a park, campus, cafeteria or just attractive places to be, meet, stay and enjoy the weather. Society as a whole has become too soft, especially towards young beautiful women. Consumerist Ideology to me seems to be the biggest issue, especially when not countered by good values. Women are getting played by the system, never told the harsh truths, lied to nonstop for their money and they enjoy it. I get it, everyone wants to sleep with these young women and noone gives them reality checks, not even their fathers and mothers. I honestly wouldn´t blame young women as much as I would blame the Gen X and Boomer mothers. I´ve seen waaay too many marriages broken up by these mothers to believe anyone else is at fault. The then lack of father figures for both young men and young women is devastating. Social Media and porn are a clear issues, sure, but that goes for both sexes. In many parts of the world women just want too much before pregnancy, that´s not really needed. I think the russian model is optimal, having children early between sometimes 16-18 and 25 before higher education. It makes much more sense in terms of the fertility window and also for education and the kids themselves. The first 3-4 years mothers are just too needed for the children, then after others like grandmother can take over and help, while the mother can then pursue other goals. Basicly a longer civil service insted of military service for men with lifelong benefits. Second and Third children become much easier to raise, with an older sibling around and gathered experience from the first child. Another benefit of having children early is of course much better health outcomes for the children. The numbers of children with disabilities physical and/or mental are exploding here in germany and global...since mothers have delayed their family plans into their late 30´s and early 40´s. Gouvernments in general shy away from proposing any changes toward their populations...especially females it seems. I really think they´re scared of the unforseeable consequences most likely toward voting behavior. It´s really wierd to me how noone dares to offend or reality check young women. I´ve seen it very clear in work environments. Maybe Allegations, psychologcal warfare or the social weaponry of women is so feared that noone wants to be on the receiving end. I can see a slow shift starting though. Young Fathers have an extremely high standing in public, mothers get educated or schooled a lot more. Even online most bs of women gets called out now. I´m slowly even seeing a more cautious and critical approach toward female students and women in the university and work setting at least here in germany. I must say though, the early to mid 20´s of a man nowadays are harsh. The late 20´s or early 30´s are so much better. I´d advise young men to use opportunities such as carnival, traditional or local events to get to know people. Activities in a association/club/group are perfect to learn and get to know others.
@@stackk.113 Read the last sentence of OP. I would add: get a large social circle and a lot of friends. That way you have a lot of friends of friends - potential GF if you click at some social event. Also are you good enough to get the GF you desire? Would she desire you? And I am not talking only about gym. Although that can help. But also not only about money. Although that can help too. I mean it even more generally - having life in order. And also ditch any negative feelings towards 'women in general' if you have them. No girl is 'woman in general'.
Never heard of the 'Russian model' is this an estabilished term to describe having children early with help of grandparents? Or just something that describes current situtation in Russia?
@@stackk.113 she's from a rural very remote area from the north sea of Germany we have very similar values, love nature, animals and enjoy the little things like community, she's not materialistic at all, a rare find I have to be honest. I had many disappointments before...had my first experiences with 14-16-18 year olds...as a 17 -18-20 year old. Times were definitely better before smartphones and dating apps. Most of them were from another school in the same small city. Never had any real success with dating apps.
@@saravandra I still don't have my life in order lol. I guess people not from Europe can't imagine what's possible within a good system, with Child care and parent money. Birth is completely free, taken care of by health insurance and the state. Confidence is key. Abundance mindset. I gotta be honest I followed RSD, mainly Todd Valentine, who had some very good advice. I also like Owen a lot. It's all about attitude. I guess I am her type, that helps. I'm average height slightly below average tbh. I was never slim, always strong some might call me fat or bulky. I've always been on the heavier side. I'm at 106kg atm. Optimal was 85-95 for me. The Cheat codes in my opinion are being happy without girlfriend, making intensions clear at the first date. Push and pull to spark interest helps, long walks together talking sealed the deal. Being able to let them go is the ultimate pull. Neediness is a big no-go, instantly kills any attraction. I stayed with her and had kids because I can be almost 100% myself with her. This had never been the case with any other before her. Basically have your own thing going for yourself does the trick. I always worked on improving my communication skills. I might be a little bit on the spectrum I don't know for sure. I had to learn many things the hard way.
I think economics are a big contributing factor for lower birth rates. People in poorer countries have larger families despite less means because standards of living are much lower. In poor countries with high fertility rates , children are seen as an asset as they can provide for the family. It is also socially acceptable to have 10 children living in a mud hut. Whereas in richer countries children are an economic burden and our standards of living are much higher. We want a quality of life for our children and if we were to let our kids live the way they do in 3rd world countries it wouldn’t be socially acceptable and you’d have your kids taken from you. So in order to give your kids a quality of life, it’s prohibitively expensive for some.
Some very wealthy (career) people I know in California have plenty of money for children but have none. Of course children would detract from the "all about me" lifestyle. And many of California's poorest have the most in way of children.
"and if we were to let our kids live the way they do in 3rd world countries it wouldn’t be socially acceptable and you’d have your kids taken from you." This is false in European countries parents are not taken away from their children if they live in poverty, they only get taken away if they are abusive or neglectful towards their children.
I think that decentralization of powers from states and central governments to municapabilitys would help. it would basically make each municapability a small population in small area that needs to treat themselves as a local family and local tradition maybe it would give someone a some sort of local patriotism and thus hope for more children. Sorry for my english 😊
@@Mr-Weiss The fact that you think a small white ethnostate is bad, just when someone offers a real-world comparison, is racism against white people. You would not make the same statement if he mentioned an Israeli kibbutz community.
I don't think it's that different in the NL than in any other western european country. In a nutshell, you've become too wealthy and too developed. So in your society the family is no longer the smallest economic unit. So people have no incentive to stay together and have kids. And so the story goes...
People until 1960s: we want to spend time with our children at home after work. People in 2024: we want to watch YT videos and Netflix series and play games. 😁
Parents used to spend far less time with their kids in the past than they do now. Dads especially have never been more involved in their children’s lives than right now.
You brought up larger houses being good for fertility. A factor you didn't mention there is that, in urban areas with more larger houses, housing ends up being far more expensive, which would also negatively impact fertility. The topic of how to design a city so as to maintain the benefits of urbanism without toppling birthrates is a really interesting one, and isn't anywhere near as simple as "build larger houses".
You touched on the life cycle briefly when you mentioned the idealization of life in rural areas. When young people grow up, they find that there is not much to do (boring), thus striving to move to more vibrant cities where the actions occur. Then, meet a person and start to talk about family. For optimum growing-up conditions, they often look at suburbs and (preferable) single-family houses if they can afford them. Thus, observing lower birth rates in cities is expected. Cheers.
Animals are notoriously difficult to breed on farms, in labs, zoos. I reckon territoriality is a coded thing - you need to be certain you're on your own turf and have privacy. I think urban dwellers shouldn't set rules for everyone, either - delineate metro area and apply their laws there only. Regular people maybe would do better if they perceived cities as sort of a transient thing - you go there to compete and make resources and experience to then use for living outside the city, or fail and be ground into oblivion.
Animals in zoos are difficult to breed. However I think a huge part of it is our poor understanding of their nutritional needs (combined with sheer lack of budget). What constitutes essential vitamins is different for different animals, and giving them their natural food might be too expensive. (For example, giraffes are fed hay but in the wild they never eat grasses.) Zoo animals are often noticeably smaller than their healthy wild counterparts.
I think women are afraid of the physical pain of child birth process as well as the 9 months to bring a baby to term. That’s not even to mention the massive cost in time to care for children speaking of both women and men. However women can’t even be sure man will take care of them (relationship insecurity). Both can’t be sure of a steady income (job insecurity). Both men and women are lothe to give up career, hobbies, and free time for children. They dont think of passing on the family name, or other such things, but only think of current worldly pleasure
the physical pain is nothing and you can ask anyone (only the first is worst and if you have enough, you won't even know you were pregnant until you went to labor) it's just that too many women were given too much independence and they think they're above the "bondage" to motherhood or at best have their single child when dead near 40
@@saagisharon8595While I would disagree with you in regards to childbirth being almost ‘painless’ it is certainly true that many women, in the developed countries especially, tend to delay childbirth in favour of their careers, not realising that they are nearing the end of their reproductive window, and, as such, despite wanting to have several children, end up with only one or none at all. There exists a lack of knowledge/general awareness about this issue which needs to be discussed more
Why would anyone care about passing on a family name? What’s so special about my surname or anyone else’s that it needs to exist in the future? There might be a future with nobody with my surname eventually why would I care it’s just a word?
Never understood why people are afraid to give up hobbies for children. I have two dogs and love taking care of them, caring for children would be a better version of being a dog parent. Children are more work ofc but the basic idea is the same.
25:15 You touch briefly on the "urban planning crowd" -- I do think there is more to explore here. The world has moved a lot towards "top down" approaches, centralized (even global) planning, highly specialized skill sets, and I do think that's part of the issue. People who favor everything being master planned will also do this in their personal lives. You can only master plan things using existing and known concepts. You can master plan a house using known existing building materials but you can't master plan a house with novel materials. When you're planning your personal life, you, your spouse, your kids, are all novel unique humans. You can't master plan your entire life. You have to jump in and figure it out as you go at some point. So the master planning types will have trouble settling down because no spouse is exactly how they wanted it and it's never quite the right time to have kids. That's why people have pets because they're submissive conforming companions. Higher education heavily steers people toward centralized planning .
I got my degree in urban planning and work in the department of Finance in one of the largest US cities. The urbanist utopians you described are not real urban planners but activists who do not actually work in the industry. Real urban planning in America is completely based in the free market and is essentially a study in economics and management.
@@StayFreshMyFriends Interesting. Can you elaborate on what you mean with "free market"? It seems to me that the zoning laws , subsidized public transport, rent control, things like that aren't really free market based. I'm not disagreeing with you just trying to learn something.
@@castirondudeall of those things interact with the free market and the market adapts to them. My state actually banned rent control so I don't know how the urban planners in California or New York feel about it, but where I am no serious planner advocates for rent control.
I think population collapse and subsequent collapse of civilization will not happen, because societies will respond to new conditions. People adapt to environment. If you lived in 70s and 80s, there was a widespread fear that population explosion would lead to widespread food shortage resulting in calamitous decline in living standard and steep rise in social instability. (See movies like Soylent Green) However, this eventuality did not come to pass because of 2 things: 1. Agriculture changes - consolidation of farming business leading to economy of scale and better exploitation of land; widespread use of fertilizers (Haber-Fritz nitrogen today creates more bio pass than soil bacteria nitrogen fixation today) and pesticides achieving previously unimaginable crop yield; drastic reduction in transportation cost (you can ship 1 lb of stuff from Asia to America for few cents). In summary, a huge boost in food production and distribution was achieved. 2. Culture change. Yes, there is feminism and gender equality in employment. But when you are told constantly that there are too many people in the world, your view eventually changes. I've come to believe that the value of reproduction is not critical, and made forming a family and raising children an optional endeavor in life. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this regard, and probably contributed to the problem discussed in the video. My prediction is that as population starts to decline, there will be a culture shift, and more people will be inspired to have children. Also, it's a safe bet that there will be technological breakthroughs and institutional reforms to help as well. These things take time - it took about half century for population explosion to be corrected. I think it will take similar amount of time for population collapse to be fixed as well.
It is exactly that opinion on having children being an option which got us here in the first place. Don't you care about those who came before you? Those who hunted their entire lives, those who toiled in the fields and died in battle? All that so their families could live, all that so YOU could exist now. I find the thought of not having kids as unacceptable. My, and my family's continued existence is the only mark my ancestors, and 99.9% of the populations' antecedents left on the world. I will not allow their lives and sacrifices to be meaningless Sorry for the rant, I feel strongly about this😅 Have a nice day bro
I think none your ancestors care whether you leave a legacy as they are all dead. All the things that you brag about,your ancestors did those things not because they wanted to but because they needed to. Cultural norms and societal expectations played a huge role in shaping their lives. Nowadays,people are much more free to do whatever they want with their lives.They've also realised that there is more to life than to follow a predefined script that has been pushed upon them by society.Geeting married and having a family being one of them. Speaking of your ancestors you probably don't know much about them and even those dating back from the caveman days. Why attribute so much importance to a bunch of dead people that you don't even know and haven't even met in your entire life. And tell me what is so precious about your genetics that it should be replicated into the future.Your genes will eventually get diluted in 3 or 4 generations.
@@bitcoinzoomer9994 I think none of your ancestors care whether you leave a legacy as they are all dead. All the things that you brag about,your ancestors did those things not because they wanted to but because they needed to. Cultural norms and societal expectations played a huge role in shaping their lives. Nowadays,people are much more free to do whatever they want with their lives.They've also realised that there is more to life than to follow a predefined script that has been pushed upon them by society.Geeting married and having a family being one of them. Speaking of your ancestors, you probably don't know much about them and even those dating back from the caveman days. Why attribute so much importance to a bunch of dead people that you don't even know and haven't even met in your entire life. And tell me what is so precious about your genetics that it should be replicated into the future.Your genes will eventually get diluted in 3 or 4 generations.
May it be that the deconstruction of the "tribe" is one of the primary reasons for a decline in birth rates? The social "tribe" structure may be most beneficial for high birth rates. It would also be one explanation why villages on average have higher birth rates. If you compare different societys around the globe you could make an argument that east asias social structure is the farthest away from the original tribe structure. American suburban live seems closer. When you think about the concept of a "neighbourhood". When you have all generations and sexes living together and in contact with each other it is way more obvious for young people (especially woman) what it means to grow old without a family. In Vienna there are new city concepts which basically recreate a village in a city block with all generations living together and most basic needs available in your block. This could be a solution but definitely needs further research.
@PowerSimplified1871 his use of tribe is clealry talking about the relationships between people. A "close-nit intergenerational community of the same same culture" doesn't roll off the tongue as well as "tribe"
I agree with you! Relationships between people is key . People are much happier in tribe. It is my belief. As well i protects you from insecurity . It is a more collectivist mindset.
I would even argue that the tribe in it's optimal form (probably between 100 and 300 people, up for debate and will most likely vary through many factors) is the balance between individualism and collectivism. You could than project this order upwards to organize tribes into clusters and further to create a higher structure of society. This would be something like a democratic hierarchical order.
Women aren't having children because women neither need men to provide and protect (they have the government for protection and ludicrously one-sided policies that benefit women at the expense of men in the academic, legal, and employment spheres for provision), nor children to care for them in their old age (they have the government for that, too). Most women never really cared that much about either men or children, but the circumstances of the times before the 1920s, and certainly those of the times before industrialization, meant that not having a man or children was near certain doom for a woman. Nowadays, with the government taking care of all of their needs, women are mostly choosing hedonism over family. Collapsing fertility reflects this. This is ultimately a self-correcting problem, as the same governments that are causing the problem by doing everything for women are also pyramid schemes that cannot afford to continue satisfying the welfare and sinecure promises that they have made with a shrinking working-age population. When the economic can can no longer be kicked, the government guarantees will go away, and the hard times will force women's hand once more.
I do not hate men and to say most women is insane. I also do not hate kids. We were given no choices for a long time. Into the 1970s we were still fighting to even have credit cards and freedom of choice. Are you really ok with women being enslaved by the policies of the governments? It's wrong! I think that you need to really thinnk about this situation. Child bearing is dangerous! A lot of women die in pregnancy or during labor, or they have still born babies. Also 90% of the work for family falls on women! So why owuld I want that? You don't understand if men woudl just step up and actually take care of the kids they claim they want and treat their wives with respect then they wouldn't have this problem. I will never get married or have kids but I have a healthy relationship with my father and other men around me, I also love my nieces and nephew! I was like a second mother to them in some cases. I think that you just like to paint women with broad strokes. If I do that I would say 99% of the men are too lazy to even take care of themselves! That is why we stay single!
In some cities of Western of Europe it is becoming very dangerous. Have you been to Paris lately? The city is more and more dangerous. The suburb is even worse. Times are difficult for women walking alone. Barbarians are at the gate and some women do realize it as well. Women' rights may not be permanent and it is decreasing in western europe due to an alien culture.
Suburban single-family homes also have lots of negatives: less close neighborhood bonds, isolation, the need of commuting and its mental health effects.
Versus the alternative of living in an apartment building next to criminals and delinquent most of which being foreigners and not having enough room for your kid to actually have any type of a life
Not nessiarily. The majority of American style ones, maybe (and even the there is data about the opposite, outside of the commute). You can and there are walkable community suburbs.
Suburbs in america are actually pretty great to live in honestly. Most people who hate how " souless" they are just want to pave over them to make a 40k hive city.
I mean, I think that multiplex and transit-oriented suburbs are nicer, healthier places to be in than the endless repetition of single-family McMansions that my parents live in. I quite like Dutch suburbs, although I've only visited them for a couple of months. I find them much more pleasing to the soul and body, and yet they do have the space and ownership that many people want. Just my two cents!
@@saagisharon8595 the cities in America are the most filthy polluted parts of the country, the suburbs at least preserve some nature around them with parks and the like. And your right we could do a better job at planning cities but in America at least people move to the suburbs to escape the cities and cars aren't the reason why.
@@kaiserrichard2017 don't you get it? either the car manufactures or the oil tycoons lobbed to have america designed this way it also doesn't help to have a nimby attitude
Lee Kwan Yew understood this a long long time ago… and he said he couldn’t solve it. That’s from the seminal genius and greatest statesman of the century. So we are fucked
The higher fertility rate for people in bigger houses is absolutely related to people who have kids deliberately moving to bigger blocks, not because having a bigger house makes you have more kids. My childless friends mostly live in smaller places in the city, and then when they have kids, they move out to the suburbs so the kids can have space to run around. What would even be the point of paying for a huge house and garden if you're just a 30 year old bachelor who lives alone and spends most of their time working/partying/on hobbies, etc?
While people who have kids try to move out to larger homes, it's also true that people who want kids often put them off untill they can afford larger homes. There is numerous statistics that support both.
Kind of difficult to hint at it as a possible negative root cause, but it may be the abundance of potential and options. The pressure still exists, but we are spending more time with the selection rather than acceptance.
@VshapeDino Many that are last shall be first, and the first last. 1988 was the end of the 'church age'. God separated the wheat from the tares by telling the wheat to come out from among them - churches were given to Satan to destroy. 1994-2011 was the 'latter rain' outside the churches worldwide. Those elect are at a much higher percentage in SE Asia, India, middle eastern countries than the unfaithful western societies. May 21, 2011 was the beginning of judgement day on the world { you were warned } And it shall come to pass in that day, a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor. "tumult" = disbelief & confusion ( on the unsaved of the earth) Division is the result for the destruction of mankind. spoiler alert: 'last day' = 2033 there are probably more of God's elect in China than in all Europe and the America's ...half the worlds population lives within 1000 miles of Singapore. The bible gives a figure of 200 million total throughout all of history, with majority alive now (150+ million ?)
Я полагаю что единственная реальная значимая причина снижения возраста рождения первого ребенка - высокие ожидания населения. За последние 60 лет производительность труда выросла многократно. Однако есть физический барьер в виде КПД передачи энергии. Мы достигли предела развития как высоко развитое общество, которое сжигает топливо и перерабатывает ископаемые материалы. Подобно тому как вода в плотине ГЭС застыла в высшей точке и медленно выбрасывает излишки не изливаясь огромной волной, так и человеческое общество исследует границы этой плотины, не подозревая, что вершина недостижима. Есть два пути выхода: 1) ещё одна кровавая война, которая обнулит надежды на счастливое будущее всех сразу 2) Каждый лично для себя поймет, что хорошего будущего для своих детей не настанет никогда и лучше рожать сейчас. Второй путь доступен не всем и связан со сложным осознанием своего места в мире. Люди же всё чаще предпочитают не делать выбор, и в случае собственной мнительности люди предпочитают закончить свой жизненный путь сейчас. Нет СССР с его коммунистическим будущим. Нет также свободного капиталистического государства с социальными элементами, ведь коррупция забирает плоды труда населения а СМИ внушают ложные идеалы, которые недостижимы. Не могу поверить, что попы и кто-нибудь ещё может повлиять на девушку типа как: "Хей, тебе уже пора рожать, выходи замуж". А она такая: " Ок, да, реально". Я не думаю, что с рождаемостью есть какие-то проблемы. Все дети которые не рождены сейчас, могут быть рождены благодаря развитию медицины позже. Частично именно благодаря развитию медицины происходил рост населения после второй мировой войны. Однако существуют объективные причины почему рожать слишком поздно это вредно. Из-за капитализма есть предел распространения технологий (речь не о пределе развития, а об именно про массовое применение) . Боюсь самые передовые технологии останутся преимуществом богатых стран. Единственный значимый для меня показатель - количество работающих людей к числу пенсионеров. Я думаю, что всеобщая система пенсионных накоплений будет упразднена. Это реально то, что меня пугает.
While likely not sufficient on its own, I think a necessary step for reconciling the aspirations of women with the demands of a family would be to institute 20 hour work weeks. Taking care of children and a home is a full time job, which in previous generations had traditionally been left to the wife, with the husband serving as the breadwinner. As women have entered the workforce there has not been a corresponding decrease in work expected by the husband, meaning that total aggregate time a couple spends working had effectively doubled, leaving no time for homemaking. At a societal level we have allowed the economic engine to double the time it extracts from the population, and while production has increased dramatically, it had come at the cost of our investment in creating future generations.
Well noted every one does not want to talk aboput this. I expect it is due to it going against the Liberal value of exuality and Feminisms equality to live like a man. Everyone wants to be equal even if they dont realise it. The Christian idea of complenting each other is the colsest you can get to a solution. Gives a fertility boost and praises mothers.
@@BeachandHills-hb2pq To be clear, my proposal represents a new way not a return to the differential division of labor. Instead of a stay at home mother and a full time working father, I'm suggesting that halftime work weeks become the new standard (20 hour work weeks). In that way both parents would share working and homemaking duties.
The garden city concept is an attempt to combine the best of both city and rural areas. The video author may find it interesting to read up on. They are functionally superior to the sprawling suburb concept.
I already gave up, this country (Czech Republic) has no future and governments in last 20 years did nothing with this problem, so we will all die in next few decades, already now, people have to work in their 80s becuase there is noone who could replace them on their well qualified work place and this problem will be even worse. They are surprised that people don't want kids anymore....in situation when your salary is 30 000 CZK and rent of flat is also 30 000 + no kindergartens availavble, which means that one parent has to stay home with kid for years, it's just not possible to have kids, it would be economical suicide, kids are only for rich people or for people who don't care that their kids will be living in shits. I grew up in shits and I will never bring kids to that too, like when you can't pay their school lunches and these things.... State is doing nothing, it doesn't matter if it's ODS, Babiš or ČSSD, they are all useless and didn't solve anything, this country is lost, everyone will move to Poland in future.
@DutifulComments Welcome to our world, western prices, eastern salaries. 😀 Problem is that we have really extreme bureaucracy, when you buy a land, it can take even 15 years before they finally let you start with construction, that's the main reason why housing is that expensive, we need more new apartments to be finished to make it cheaper, but mafia politicians don't want it for some reason (corruption I guess). Another thing is UNESCO and sight keepers generally, they won't allow anything to be built. Ofcourse one advantage is that our cities look nice and historical, but we live in open space museum, it's good only for tourists. When you go to Vienna and you see what they are doing, like massive hole to underground next to gothic cathedral....that would be never allowed here. Another thing (you already mentioned it) is aribnb + army of so-called expats who move here because it's cheaper for them, but they still earn US money, so these people also increase prices, nobody speaks Czech in Prague anymore, you need English even in your mother city. And ofcourse energy crisis and it's not true that it's everything because of war, it started already before with some big companies going bankrupt and people over night got like 10 times higher bills for electricity. In country where everything works and government is not just bunch of scammers and liars, state would not allow this. We live in so-called "wild capitalism" since 90s. When your flat owner says that your rent will be 10 times higher since tomorrow, it's gonna be like that, you can't do anything. Everything social is considered communism here, but in name of communism beating, we created something even worse. In USA, they also have that wild capitalism, but you are at least not forced to pay healthcare and all these things. Here you have to pay it, but then you have to go to private doctor and pay again, because health care is not available because of another crisis in healt system. It's really gone here, there is no hope. Only hope is wait until that generation of politicians who is reasponsible for 90s stealing finally dies and we need to completely restart our country and start again.
@@TheSwedishHistorian Not anymore, we are just surfing on our past right now, but that can't work forever. Slovenia and Estonia already overpassed us in living standard, Poles are massively investing to infrastructure, they have new highway, they will have fast trains soon, when they decide they will build something, they will start building it, they are attracting investors and solving housing crisis by massive constructions of apartment buildings. It's too late to start competing in this fight for us. We had advantage in 1989 because there were still people who remembered capitalism and renewed their old companies + our country was not that damaged during WWII, but other countries had 34 years when they actually worked, we didn't work, we were just saying "we are better than them, Germans come here and invest" but it doesn't work anymore. I will just give you one example of how it doesn't work here - our fast trains for example, we are talking about starting with construction for 20+ years and we still did nothing, but each government is giving promises that they will finally do it and then one villager says NO, it's not gonna be in my village and it's everything on start, plans are scrapped, bilions of CZK are burned with no results, this is how it works here, this country is lost. I am visiting Poland pretty often, I see their progress, their minimal salary will be soon higher than what a lot of people earn here + they have like half prices of housing and food. Our country is based on low paid work for German companies, but this economical model doesn't work anymore, a lot of economs are saying that it's not gonna work anymore and we have to do something now, because after another 15 years, it's gonna be too late. A lot of massive investments were canceled in last years because of our buerocracy or nonsense requirments from our country, so they are moving to Poland.
What we have created in modernity is unhealthy and unsustainable. We will have to scale back either way. Infinite growth is a dangerous corporate illusion that society has adopted. My guess is that as things get worse and scale back, there will be more room for growth as there would be in an ecosystem, whereby there are limits to growth. Let's hope it does not result in baby factories or Handmaid's tale style scenarios.
It seems to me that the legal aspect is also important. Now the law is almost always on the woman’s side. In a divorce, the woman is almost always the beneficiary. Alimony for her and the child. The child is in most cases with a woman. The woman has very great protection, even though this is done at the expense of the man. I looked at one lawyer. He said that the family code is about property. There is nothing about any moral issues. If a woman (or a man) cheats, there will be no legal consequences for them. The judge will normally only consider the issue of marital property. If everyone can leave at any time, then as soon as someone doesn’t like something, he will leave. Previously, if someone left, most likely each of them would die of hunger and would receive condemnation from others. Sorry about my English.
Mgtow is cope. Guess what? A million other men will take your place so your point is moot. It’s not a real argument. Stop blaming men for the choice of vvomen.
The true problem with western society today is that there is no consequence for failure. As you say, you stop working with your family and some if not all of you may die in premodern times. You stupidly gamble all you money away, used to that could be the end of you. You make horrible business decisions and are about to go bankrupt there would be no bailout coming. You simply decide you don't want to work anymore you don't even have to spend our time begging like the old days, just go down to you local government office and act like you cant get a job even though you intentionally make sure the interviewers will not hire you and you will get free regular checks from those who actually do work and pay taxes.
Not at all in Eastern Europe where the creator lives. Child support is given to the custodial parent but unlike the US, both parents can get custody if they so wish which results in no need to pay child support... but the men usually pick child support over custody. Only assests obtained in marriage and therefore by both partners are split. To get alimony after divorce, one partner has to have serious problems preventing employment like disability and it is only for a limited amount of time.
I think that the decrease in Testosterone levels in men are also responsible for the demographic change. When food and hygiene products pump estrogenics into mens body on a mass scale, we can expect that they will have higher rates of infertility and not have the responsibility required to have children.
Good point, I recall reading that around a quarter of finnish men are functionally sterile. I believe environmentalists would be able to reach out to more men if they spent more time hammering home the point that our current industrial society is making you fat, sick and sterile.
You are absolutely right in your video, but I could bet money that your audience is at least 90% male. We boys need to talk about this topic with women. We need to have an open and non-threatening conversation with them if we want to solve the problem.
Hahahahaha, yeah let's try and logic women into making massive risks with their social prestige, I'm sure telling them about problems will really help them. Not, create solutions and then open the door to womem, a collaborative process is part of marriage, but not of relations between the sexes and engaging on that level is like trying to negotiate land rights with monkeys.
as someone who is anti-suburbia, the problem with suburbs isn't that everything there is bigger and far apart, it's the fact that separation and *honestly soulless* copy-paste environment disincentivizes effective investment in infrastructure. This is honestly best exemplified by the insanely rare 'streetcar suburbs', or suburban regions with close-together multi-room houses linked via public transportation to commercial or business spaces is one answer, and multi-family housing in suburban regions is another (duplexes, triplexes, ect). The problem with most suburban regions is that because there's no transportation and no third places, it cripples the sense of community that both urban and rural areas can cultivate and that's why there's an opioid epidemic in places like america.
6:47 - that's naive. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot just cherry-pick good aspects of modernity and reject the rest unless you create a hugely centralized state.
@@RA9U1 100% China will sooner or later start growing children in artificial wombs in giant factories, and then raise them collectively. Maybe they will be able to build quasi-socialism.
@@RA9U1 Not really, China has always been like that. China can be summed perfectly by "the more things change the more they stay the same" It's a collectivist, hierarchical society, it always has been. Whether the dynasty is called Han or Song or Tang or the CCP it doesn't matter.
It’s so hard to figure out, it’s not religiousness- as Iran now has collapsed rates (and Saudi is fast approaching) It’s not poverty because both India and Brazil are sub replacement It’s not feminism because Korea is far lower then liberal Sweden It’s not racial because Barbados and African Americans are below birth rate of Czechs It’s not even rural/urban because Polands rural fertility rate is lower then many western countries urban one. So what really is it?
@@georgep.s.f.r.5397 to be honest the mindset of Isreal is very different from the rest of the world, Almost exterminated and surrounded by enemies, can’t be replicated anywhere else
Women’s education, empowerment and employment is negatively correlated to fertility rate. The UN has been selling that as a solution for overpopulation. S. Korea has rabid feminist group pushing gender wars, female president and the 4b movement. That are absolutely affected by feminism. Not the sole reason but def a contributing factor
@@WastedBananas the 2.1 figure isn’t universal, counties with higher infant mortality like India need 2.2 plus. But sure, it’s at replacement and dropping fast, will be projected to be 1.9 by the end of 2025 I feel my point still stands
from a woman standpoint: what is the point of me being with a guy who is irresponsible and cannot take care of me any my children and being extra child? that is why women don't want to have kids and start fnailies, because guys want rights and no responsibility in child care and upbringing and expect not only for women to work, bring money, food, take care of the kids, whike their husbands will have leisure drinks after work (if they even work in the first place), and I have seen many man behave like that growing up and still to this day, being momas boys not able to frx two eggs for themselves while starving and wonder why no women wants to date them... your partner is your partner, not a parent.... that is why women like "rich" or just more traditional men who take care of them because they are actually grown up adult, not some guy who has (insert number) of baby mamas, no job, no drive and puts zero efffort in dating and complaining about women, while they also expect women to be 10/10 instagram model looks, breadwinner girlies who will mother them... I don't know who is to blame for that situation tho, I hear many people both men and women having a struggle in dating and I do believe there is a good man and women out there and there is possibility fir healthier relationships... I would blame social media, dating apps, certian adult sites and inabillity for many people to grow up and become actual adult (what ever that also means to people) and get their shit together as people would say... I also believe there is something with baby boomers being the largest population currently living and them all disappering one day will make birth to dead ratio scary in numbers, modern families have 1-3 kids in general, while babyboomers (my grandma for example) had 7 siblings, but only 3 making it to adult age tho, so yea it is not only younger generations to blame and I believe in free choice to either have kids or not and all demographic field for me is voyaristic to say the least and it doesn't take people as people, it treats people like number
The irony. You are probably not aware of it, but you indirectly stated that women tend to fool around with irresponsible ones. Maybe start dating responsible guys before blaming men for womens mistakes.
finally, a sane comment in a sea of insane people, who always blame women and consider themselves perfect, we'd be better off if we understood the other person and treated him/her with respect, instead of someone to blame
Dating experience and dating culture creates that type of guys The responsible guy does not have time to go and party with his friends all night long and look for casual segs He studies, works and keeps whoever he has with him afloat while also keeping a few free moments for meaningful conversation with women ... But that type is considered too nice for you even though most of us would probably sacrifice our own lives for you in a time of crisis
@@cybernd78Exactly, that's the problem of female sexuality. They find the traditional, modestly dressed, settled, working 9 -5 job guy boring. They want the "bad guys", rockers, rebels, but then they are surprised when this "free thinking" guy leaves them or doesn't care about his children.
You should take a look at the effects of "the pill" on fertility. Multiple economics papers look into its effect in the labor market, which you could use in your videos.
If your only measure of humanity’s level is birthrates. 🙄 Modern conservatives clamouring for less developed times because of high birth rates are like Queers for Palestine: Neither would probably survive a single day in the society they endorse. At least KaiserBauch himself was honest enough to acknowledge he wants to preserve as many of our modern conveniences as possible. Many others seem to almost hope for society to collapse, so that “hard times can create strong men again”. Apparently not realising that this cycle they like to cite so often inherently makes any pursuit of progress - any pursuit of “good times” - pointless.
Easy to say, me and my girlfriend are okay with starting a baby factory but it's really expensive to rent a one bedroom apartment. Not to mention how expensive it is to buy a family house.
The bigger question that needs answering is... why do we even care if the population drops? The reality is that we measure this drop mostly since the baby boom, which was a very short while ago historically speaking. And it was not like the nations of the world before this boom didn't live well or happily. It seems like the boom was an exception, and we are slowly going back to the norm. Which is nothing frightening, this is nothing like the demographic collapses after famines or wars or other cataclysmic catastrophes.
Outstanding video. Balanced, objective analysis, clearly expressed and illustrated, and complete. I'm subscribing and looking forward to viewing the rest of your catalog.
Aside from revoking women's rights back to 19th century level, the only thing I can imagine working would be paying women to get pregnant and give birth. As in, one could make a career out of making babies and delivering them to the state so that they can be raised in a communal environment. Quite frankly, even if the ideas of making up a new religion or improving housing society-wide were executed perfectly, I can't imagine them making enough impact to improve fertility by more than 0.1 - 0.2
@@lchig0 I don't like it either, I just think this is genuinely the most realistic option if the goal is going above replacement. Personally I just don't think low fertility is something we should fight. Instead we should look into how to adapt to the new reality.
@@delusion2987 "or.. just artificial wombs. randomly picked, healthy sperm and egg donors, the child grows up alongside other children with no actual parents in a state caretaker facility" Do you trust your government to such extent? What you propose basically means more power to the government. "unlike for example in old times in a multi generational farmhouse where they provide value basically from the get go. " You really think that peasants in the past were planning like that? I highly doubt so. You are overdramatizing.
I kind of empathise with women on this one. They’re just experiencing the first phases of enlightenment. Many of them have started to ask themselves the most basic existential questions: “what am I?” “Why am I this?” “Why am I here?”. Just imagine you suddenly realise that you don’t actually have to submit your body to the unbearable pains of pregnancy and the scares it leaves on your beloved body. Of course many of them are going to think about it twice before getting pregnant for the sake of the species. Many of them will take the “let others do it” stance. Who can blame them? Of course I also don’t condone hate towards modern men, but how to stop them from being free? Converting everybody to Islam?
You tax the non-child-raising people a percentage of their income and take this money and distribute it among the child-raising people. People raising two kids get double the share of the money, three kids, triple. And so forth and so on. It automatically balances out because when more people have children, the share per child decreases and makes children less desirable. The tax rate can be adjusted to balance out at a particular desired birth rate. Granted, it heavily involves transferring money from wealthy majorities to poor minorities, so I don't imagine that any society on Earth would actually implement it or anything similar. They would choose self-immolation first.
@@Veylon Well, part of our taxes is already destined to single mothers, so there’s that. The adjustments you’re proposing just take that closer to communism, so many would freak out even though it might make sense.
@@davidcervantes9336 Bachelor taxes existed way before Communism. They were used in the pre-independence American colonies, for instance. But I get what you mean. Any pro-Natalist policy will be pilloried as Communistic because it would involve favoring an aspect of society outside of raw, immediate productivity.
@@Veylon I'm perfectly aware all sorts of taxes have always existed, but we have to focus on the current mindset of society. Anything that ''threatens'' freedom, even if it's for our very own survival, would be catalogued as ''bad'' because ''communism bad''.
i think the ideology surrounding what love is is extremely flawed today and it could be really helpful if people weren’t so afraid of the consequences of love and relationships. it also isn’t religion and is undeniable. it also encourages collectivism with meaning and care behind it more so like a rural community when done with love. nobody teaches love and not many try to think about it deeply and critically or implement it in their life in a really helpful way. it’s urban and results in more babies. also in the thinking of if people had more love for themselves and all things, which is of course actively fought against by governments.
From an urban planning perspective, I believe that Jane Jacobs described cities best by posing them as places of various levels of complexity, and that cities function as organisms. In this context American suburbia is the equivalent of dissecting each component of said organism and pretending that each component can independently function as a whole, which evidently it cannot. Cities have historically typically had below replacement level of fertility with them only growing due to the constant inflow of rural migrants. However accounting for the high mortality rate I would assume that cities in the past would still have a higher fertility than modern day cities such as Tokyo or NYC. The way to square the circle is create spaces that promote family well being as well as focusing on how these places can function as an actual city not just as disparate nodes of development. I think that the only places that could be said to be built in this way would be the archetypical "Old Town/Mainstreet USA" places, such as the Orange Circle in SoCal. Having places be walkable and built for a human scale as well as understanding that places need to be of multiple uses to promote vibrancy and keep a city alive, does not necessarily mean that all places have to look like Shanghai or Mumbai to be considered well designed.
Your perspective is feeling quite balanced these days and that truly is excellent. I appreciate the realistic approach. Those of the left and the right must come together on this issue. Human rights will not be scarified and neither will quality of life. This issue is bigger than politics.
One other reason is that having children can be awfully difficult. I have 3 and if i hadnt had a huge extended family around, private health care and a lot of money i would have gone mental. They dont aleep for 4 years, they cost a lot, you dont get a break, you go through severe mental and physical trauma having them and its impossible to manage this as a family of 2 adults. My husband and i both came from generational wealth so we can afford the pressures of child rearing. But most cant, if i was working a low or even mid paying job with no family around I'd only have 1 maybe 2. I've seen people completing breakdown over not having a child that sleeps and having to manage a job at the same time, of course they wouldn't have another! I wouldnt have if i didnt have night nannies. I think there likely has been a significant increase in "one and done" families
That's why the only, unfortunate option is patriarchy. One works and makes money, the other takes care of children. I don't see any other alternative (except being rich and having nannies). I worked as a cleaner (UK) and I had some contracts for the rich and privileged family in upper class. Massive estate, horses etc. Two cooks, people who took care of stables. The lady had 5 children, a man worked as a CEO. The minute she had her last baby it was taken by the nanny. It was the nannies who took care of children. That woman was mostly painting. She also slept a lot. I think her father eventually get her some high paying job, but she left it.
@@sebsebski2829 most men do not want this. Most men want to raise their children. They do not want to be working 2 jobs and never see them. One raising the kids and one being out of the home all the time working does work for anyone's wellbeing. It is also very bad for the children to not see their fathers. I've seen it myself, overworking men do not make happy healthy children. In this sense, your definition of patriarchy is bad for men and children. Think a bit more.
@@mateuszmisztela601 most certainly! My first just didn't sleep and I was up breastfeeding all night, without my mother around to take the baby in the morning so I could sleep I would never have had another!
@@sebsebski2829 honestly you need to get into reality. Your definition of patriarchy makes for a miserable home life, especially for men and children. Men do not want this. Most men want to raise their children. They don't want to be out of the home all day working multiple jobs to support many mouths. Children need present fathers in their lives. I know men who work very hard to do this and they are depressed, they miss their children growing up. Men don't have children because they want to work harder for some vague nationalistic cause, they have children because they want to HAVE children. Men need to be recognised more as beings who have family rights and love towards their children as much was women do. This is bad for men and children.
The vast majority of Europeans and Americans can afford to either own or rent homes. Moreover the vast majority of subsaharans are poorer than their European and American counterparts and yet in every one of those countries with the exception Botswana and South Africa the fertility rate is above 3 children per woman.
@@algernonsidney8746 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck so they certainly CANNOT afford to either own or rent homes, hence why 50% of adults are living back home with their parents. The cost of living in Africa and other third world places is significantly cheaper than the West and the quality of life in those regions is also significantly worse. People can tolerate to live in such terrible living conditions there due to illiteracy and ignorance. You can't expect the average Western person to be ok living in mud huts, having no access to education, healthcare, reliable electricity, or even decent food.
The problem with North American Suburbia is not the spacious houses, it is that they rely too much on cars because there is lack of anything that is not residential in these neighbourhoods so they must get out of their regions and drive half an hour or more to buy anything. If there were stores in those neighbourhoods the residents would be walking the same thirty minutes or driving five.
The reason why things are cheaper in other places is due to lower transportation costs as well as other economic factors such as security and crime rates (places that have higher crime leads to more goods being lost to theft which leads to increasing prices to compensate). The cost of transporting stuff will always be baked in somewhere, it’s only a matter of whether you’re paying for it literally with the price or paying for it by owning and maintaining a car. Personally I prefer the latter, since a car is useful for many, many things.
There's a Giant slightly less than a mile away. I walk there nearly every day for small this and thats. And just about the only other walkers I see in my neighborhood are out with their dogs!
@@Blox117 It’s not marketing to acknowledge that things need to be moved around. 15 minute walkable cities require so much infrastructure that any small disruption will eventually result in it decaying, like dominos.
Literacy doesn't have anything with the fertility rate, not directly. The reason why Africa, Central Asia AND Israel have high fertility is about power. People make kids to wield more power among the environment / society they live in, whether it is labor intensive farmlands or an extended family apartment with lots of children of siblings or a neighborhood full of other big families.
Solution I propose is to heqvily favor families with absurd amount of children to allow them to bevome rivals to other families in the society. Tools could be very cheap luxury services, cheap cheap automobile, cheap rent, popular media propaganda campaigns, importing big families. It doesn't necessarily need to make life easier for big families, it needs to make it more like a luxury that everyone wants to have, like a fridge or car.
And they seek that power in virtue of the nature of their work. Higher literacy rates, synonymous with proliferation of women's education, reduce engagement with that type of work and so birth rates as a result.
American here. Our suburbs are not that bad. And no one, aside from rural folks, drive 30 minutes for groceries. You have a yard, spacious interior, less noise, no upstairs neighbors stomping around, room for a vehicle or three, and room for lots of kids. Yeah, Starbucks probably isnt around the corner, but if you move into the right house, you might be within view of it or a 5 minute drive. Same for all your other needs. I lived in a neighborhood with cozy houses and spacious yards. But I was sorta within view of a police and fire station, Auto Zone, gas station, and other small business. Within a mile, outside of view from my house, we had a Sonic, Domino's Pizza, Taco Bell, Mexican restaurant, pawn shop, antique store, grocery store, churches, you name it. Heck, you could reasonably bike or walk if you had to. Suburbs do work. But like with anything, you can't have morons designing them.
I got a vasectomy after my second child. The reason being, diminishing returns. I knew that I only wanted two children, and that I would only be able to provide the BEST life for 2. If I was 20 years younger, I doubt I'd consider children in 2024. We are living in a world where having children doesn't make sense, and is even a detriment in some cases. I've advised my sons against having children of their own. I'm content with my lineage ending with them.
Macroenvironmental analysis tells us that having kids is a risky and costly strategy. Climate & ecosystem, Authoritarianism, AI, Homelessness. All the energy is going into luxury gated living for the 1% quite like the 2010 movie Elysium. Living without kids gives more opportunity and flexibility now.
I won't be risking my life through a pregnancy and childbirth, plus the emotional and economical burden it takes to raise a healthy child since birth. I want to enjoy my life and travel.
it used to be normal for women in some parts of the world to have 10+ children. It isnt as bad as you think, it isnt as hard as you think, objectively. People with children are on average happier and more satisfied than people without. you wont be able to travel and enjoy the world when your 80, you need children, society needs a future, you need to plan for your future
@@francislongshore9121 "People are happier with children", no honey. Statistics say exactly the opposite... And I don't blame them. Times have changed, people want to live and enjoy life, this is what life is about.
The explanation and solution has to be about incentives lets see how many get mentioned. Literacy is not an incentive. Religion is not an incentive unless it demands fertility which none of the mainstream Religions do. Urbanization is not an incentive. The role of men and women could be an incentive. *sigh* Seriously you have to look at the reasons to what motivates people and not try to explain a Phenomena with correlations you think are relevant. All of this boils down to the Hierarchy of needs. In ye old days why was it good and desired to have many children, regardless of levels of Literacy or any of the other thing you like to talk about. If having children does not fulfill a basic need like one you need to fulfill to survive yourself, why the heck would you have children. In poor uneducated Countries you wont have Institutions that ensure your survival regardless of how many children you have. You need them to ensure you wont die when you can no longer work.
Go to piavpn.com/KaiserBauch to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free
Housing cost is because of the replacement inflows.
Isn't there founder like the heir of south koreas last dynasty
Love your work KaiserBuch
where is the link to the video
I think Technophilic Pronatalism via "demographic competition" might be a way out of depopulation or population decline or population collapse.
By Demographic Competition; i mean fiercely competing with others e.g. families, ethnic groups, countries, etc via having more children e.g. aiming for higher and higher fertility rates & birth rates and the selection pressures over time would favour more demographically competitive people to come out on top and more children.
Anyways what do you think?
The time spent becoming educated is a big factor that needs to be considered. It consumes so much of our lives from childhood to adulthood. Its incredibly common for people to not have time for relationships growing up, or for it to be discouraged by parents and teachers so children can focus on school. A lot of people end up in their mid twenties with no romantic experience and no idea how to get into one. Adult working life doesnt exactly leave one with much free time either
Couldn't agree more, and a lot of stuff that is taught to kids (at least in our country) could be reduced significantly. A lot of it is just useless information that you can find at anytime.
@@darrak1 Let's be honest, the public education systems exists more as a free daycare for parents to be able to work and engage in the economy than a true place where one can recieve education. I think half of the time spent in school from ages 6 to 18 could be removed without much change in academic results
Education is a major problem, it either needs to be heavily reformed (which won't happen, there aren't enough people with the skills to run a better version), or abolished (just in terms of state mandated education), which would work better for some than others, like anything.
@@vorynrosethorn903the factories will always need workers
Its the bankers or so called "country" Israel.
its the breakdown of the family, raising a child is torture without relatives
bruh just have a second wife just in case
@@NaderBerbish Bruh
For some of us, having relatives is torture.
@@vivianriver6450 True
@@NaderBerbish Bro has never realized the ripple effects that stem from a select few elite men taking more than one partner on the genetically/mentally inferior men of society who will inevitably cause an incel uprising and destroy nations entire economies.
Monogamy is the only answer.
I've got 2 babies at the same time (twins), what is quite a challenge haha. We moved from a capital city to a much smaller town. A price for apartment is like 2 - 2.5 less than in Warsaw. I work remotely, so I don't have to commute. The apartment we bought is not only affordable, but also in the city centre. Everything is in walkable distance. There's also a nice park. If I had to live in a big city, it wouldn't be possible. I couldn't buy anything decent in Warsaw
Congratulations on the twins! Yeah, Warsaw is a nice place to visit occasionally, but I couldn't imagine raising a family there.
Here's to the next ten.
Have atleast two more children
Prawdziwy patriota
I despise Warsaw
I would add 2 more causes:
-Popular culture showing upper middle class as a averege/median. To achieve this people cut costs - biggest cost is "next child".
-retirement systems nationalise profists of having children (only age and years of work matters).
Agree.
Is it possible to create retirement system where profits of having children?
@@krtst You can not just produce children - they have to be usefull to society by working - My solution:
-equal pension for all,
-restriction that pensioners cannot be in higher number than citizens with a maximum age of 18.
-retirement would be in terms of who is older, but added to the age of future retiree would be 15% of his length of service and his decendents, but one could not retire at an actual age less than 80% of current life expectancy.
This system is untouchable even with bad demographics, unlike today's system with a rigid retirement age, which will collapse due to the fact that fewer and fewer workers will have to support a single retiree.
More over I would add that retirees should not have active voting rights, becouse they with should-to-be-pensioners under previus system will vote change back like in Poland in 2015 after retirement age rises from 65 to 57 for men and 60 to 67 in 2011 (it was incremental rise, not one huge jump "over night").
Want to vote? Don't live at the expense of your fellow citizens. In Poland, previous government (this one which reverse rise of retirement age) bought votes for "13th and 14th pension" (ofc it was sent few week before elections) - pensioners are 25% of all voters, but 50% of former ruling party's voters. IMO lack of this safety guard will result in reversing changes if any country implement it.
@@krtst You can not just produce children - they have to be usefull to society by working - My solution:
-equal pension for all,
-restriction that pensioners cannot be in higher number than citizens with a maximum age of 18.
-retirement would be in terms of who is older, but added to the age of future retiree would be 15% of his length of service and his decendents, but one could not retire at an actual age less than 80% of current life expectancy.
This system is untouchable even with bad demographics, unlike today's system with a rigid retirement age, which will collapse due to the fact that fewer and fewer workers will have to support a single retiree.
More over I would add that retirees should not have active voting rights, becouse they with should-to-be-pensioners under previus system will vote change back like in Poland in 2015 after retirement age rises from 65 to 57 for men and 60 to 67 in 2011 (it was incremental rise, not one huge jump "over night").
Want to vote? Don't live at the expense of your fellow citizens. In Poland, previous government (this one which reverse rise of retirement age) bought votes for "13th and 14th pension" (ofc it was sent few week before elections) - pensioners are 25% of all voters, but 50% of former ruling party's voters. IMO lack of this safety guard will result in reversing changes if any country implement it.
@@krtst It is possible, but YT removed my comment with description of such a system 2 times.
@@Khneefer ok, let I try.
Retirement system should reward proportionally:
1) Children number
2) Children number who paid taxes in this country.
3) Simple fixed percent of overall children tax
How do u think?
We may have to come to terms with the fact that the current economic model simply isn't child friendly. If you look at the numbers, birth rates have been falling for 200 years. (Europe specifically) 1800 - 6, 1900 - 4 by 1970 it is around 2.3 (some countries already below replacement) This is before mass immigration, expensive housing, dating apps or birth control.
Make of that what you will.
People get used not to live in squalor. Nigerian mothers are popping 6 children each. And I’m not envious. New civilization will emerge and fall. Baby Boomers were an exception and we built a world around them.
The single most important reason is liberation of women, whether we like it or not. Women were sacrificing their lives in the past in order to birth the next generation of humans. Now they can choose not to do that, so we will never have enough women deciding to have children in order for birth rates to stabilize.
Add to that materialism and lack of religion, where we would all rather choose to live a lavish and comfy lifestyle over sacrifice for someone else and you get what we have right now. People who breed will inherit the Earth, and things will stabilize eventually.
Yes Spengaler noted this as did other famous commentators of the time. Pepeole thought it would be fixed but it got worse. If you take the videos theams you will notice Feminism and lack of releigion have increased for 200 years. Laws changed to allow abortions and creat birth control in my life time. Women ecoraged to become full time workers. Mums are called losers by some in my society. Each event drove down the birth rate. Cost of living events that happen every few years lowers the birth rate each time they happen. Sometimes causing a crash. Welcome to the end.
Our ancestors who lived in squalor compared to the developed world had loads of kids, so it cant be the economy. Notice how you said the last 200 years, it coincides with the rise of rights for a certain gender.
@@BuckNut-ck1sl Love it how you worded that. I didn't censor myself and I can't see my comment at all lol
The cause of civilizations' success is usually the same as its decline. We industrialized, urbanized, and radically changed our culture. This allowed for massive growth, but is now the reason for our downfall.
And women’s rights
Not true. The cycle isn't real.
@@Jareers-ef8hp no. The men on every country get what they want. Women were given their rights by men. Men expected more sex.
@@blue18404 Oh yea? That what is real?
Israel and the Mormons prove the opposite.
I live in Brazil. What I see is that most people doesn't like kids at all. The ones who do, are having children, despite the difficulties. I think if you completely remove "accidental pregnancy" (dont believe such thing) from Brazil, it would have the lowest fertility rate in the world
True
I thought it was because of the abnormally high LGBT population there
@@moneylineparlay105It's because of extreme liberalism. People think of Brazil as some extremely Catholic country, but it's been under the rule of hardcore athiest communists for decades up until the recent 2000's. That's left its impact.
Brazilian here. If you think rationally, having kids is just A LOT of work. As a man, I definitely do not have a high "paternal" instinct, a NEED to have kids. I have a NEED to have sex, but nature got screwed when humanity invented highly effective contraceptives. Now I can have my sex without unexpectedly reproducing. And I have a lot of sex, with a lot of different females. IF, it was 100 years ago, I could impregnate lots of women and do not get financially ruined. But in the 21st cemtury, with enforced paternity tests and a judiciary that will go after you, nah, no kids for me. It's not religion, it's just an IQ test. Smart people can see that having kids is a net negative from an individidual liberty point of view. Tbe dumb ones will keep reproducing, and Idiocracy will come sooner rather than later. Tbe future will not be Star Trek.
@@moneylineparlay105 this is an exageration. The way data is collect in Brazil is joke. The research institutes got everything wrong in every election, it is already a meme. I dont see the high number of LGTV+ people in my my daily life.
For the Feminism part, I think urbanization and destructing local communities caused this situation.
Nobody wants to be stay-home wife in isolated nuclear families.
I think local communities used to be somewhat female territories where they can be a part of a society and brag about how their children are doing well.
By destroying local communities, women lost their society and had no other choice but to compete with men on the same field.
IMO Feminism is just a superficial symptom of the situation we have cooked for centuries, and that was initiated by urbanization and destruction of local communities.
Good take, I think you're really on to something here. People, perhaps women especially, have a need for a community that exists outside of work. The erosion of community helps no one
Allow me to simplify - attention in all its forms is what women desire above most other things. Women will gravitate to what supplies the most attention. Men are similar but instead of attention we desire sex, and will gravitate towards what achieves that result best. These two motivating factors when superimposed atop both genders behaviors makes things a lot clearer and simplified. Moreover educating women and allowing them to have jobs only guaranteed the fact they, women, have the means to place themselves into the areas (ubran areas) to then garner their one truest desire, attention.
Feminism started to rise as result of WW1 and WW2 as men were sent to die by tens of millions and women were needed to keep the economy going
@@TheAzurefang yes np, the chad community is being built, sub5 human annihilation is being taken care of too, 1-2 century and all of them will be dead in their basements.
All hail chad!
All hail chad!
All hail chad!
All hail chad?
Exactly, women used to have a neighbourhood community they could rely on. Need someone to take care of your kids for a night out with your husband? Your neighbour will help! Then you return the favour and so forth.
We need grandparents to help like the old days. People today want to spend their retirement traveling and don’t want to help out with the grandkids. My grandmothers worked, their mothers before worked. You know who took care of the children back then? The grandparents, grand aunts and uncles. People had many children because they had help at home, They were poor so it was not because of money.
Yes, yes. Move in with your parents, and be ready look after your senile great grandpa like the old days. You will get help from your grandfolks in return.
@@traumvonhaiti I am not even 30 yet and my grandparents are either dead or already incapable of looking after a child. My extended family ceased to exist because of greed (inheritance). the only older family members I have left are my mother and my uncle (alcoholic). Yeah doesnt look that bright for me.
@@traumvonhaiti You don’t need to move in with your parents. They just need to help out.
@@ralfrudiger7276 I don’t have help from either grandparents of my 3 kids. One pair live far away, the other pair simply don’t want to help out. It’s hard taking care of them and balancing work and the kids sick days. Help would very much be appreciated but we get none. Still, we’re doing it and planning a 4th. Anyway, I plan on being there for my kids one day to help out. I want them to go to work and not worry about the kids. I don’t want work to be an excuse for not having kids. I will try to make life easier for them, because I know how hard it is without outside help in this day and age.
@@LouisMotathe older people get, the harder work looking after children becomes.I didn't ask one set of grandparents to babysit often as it was too much for them, and then only for an hour or two.
The other grandparent worked full time, and it's not fair asking them to give up work to raise my child. I know when it's my turn to be a grandparent, I won't be able to look after a child all day. The arthritis,thyroid and peri menopause problems are bothering me enough as it is.
Many of my friends can't find a girlfriend for years, many have given up. They want to have children, but when it's physically impossible it's hard to talk about higher fertility.
Every young woman flees to the BIG5 (I'm from Poland, BIG5 = 5 largest cities), small and medium cities consist of old people, fewer and fewer young children and bachelors who start drinking more and more as they get older.
And in big cities, these women's demands grow to absurd proportions. Many of these women complain all the time because a tall, rich, handsome guy won't fulfill her instagram dream.
I have no more hope for my mates, it's over.
Gościu dokładnie tak jest. Po studiach wróciłem do małego miasteczka i nikogo tu nie ma. Same apteki, lumpeksy i supermarkety. Do dużego miasta mnie nie ciągnie bo słabe zarobki. Załatwiłem sobie pracę w delegacjach po całym świecie i 20 koła wyciągam. Co z tego że nie ma gdzie tego wydawać.
I like how whenever there is a video about fertility collapse the comments always devolve into a guy complaining he can’t get a girlfriend
You’re a fellow chudcel 🤝 It might be over. But as the Austrian painter said “from the ashes a new phoenix shall be reborn”.
@@billusher2265 Well, it looks like we are back to polygamy.
The problem is that our entire lives, laws ,economies have been built on the assumption that monogamy is the only right doctrine.
When I was still studying it was common for one handsome guy to have 5 girlfriends and the rest pretended it was ok.
Strange times ahead.
@@billusher2265 It’s over for you once men start getting ammo and weapons instead of “girlfriend”.
“The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of ‘mutual understanding.” It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady’s who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine’s who “belongs to herself” - they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful. The same fact, in conjunction with the same arguments, is to be found in the Alexandrian, in the Roman and, as a matter of course, in every other civilized society - and conspicuously in that in which Buddha grew up.” - Oswald Spengler
Ironically, Spengler didn't have any children. If I remember correctly, he also commented that intelligence at its peak would reason its way into extinction. I don't know if he got these ideas from earlier texts and sayings, from his own reasoning, or a mixture of both, but it's clear that he was mostly- if not totally- right.
The more men blame feminism for the decrease in natality, the more the decrease will accelerate. It's only the ones who learn to understand women who breed. They are out there and usually married by 35,at latest.
@@NightinGal89 idk if any of that stuff is true if the most fertile populations, historically and in modern times, tend towards patriarchal social values.
@@shezyam460 I think he means that in a modern society, understanding women will significantly increase a man's likelihood of breeding. And as was noted in this video, there is no way to recreate a pre-modern society (barring some kind of collapse).
@@adampeters9861 i agree with that specific point, which i should have mentioned previously. i'm more in the camp of there being an unstoppable decline though, regardless of whether men and women understand each other or not.
For the women part, where you said that societal survival is also in question I will just quote one female who posted an answer to my qeustion regard this exact thing:
"Nah. Even if the species was to extinct, I wouldn't make kids. In fact, I WISH for human extinction. The advancement of humanity was the worst thing to happen to this planet."
I think her comment perfectly shows what most of modern feminists think when qeustion of induvial right vs survival of the species pops up.
I think that is understandable.
Women are not to be taken very seriously at all, they usually don't know the first thing of what they are talking about, men stand by causes, women use them against other women, either to status signal, sabotage or force uniformity, if you treat them like serious people they will think less of you. The trick is to have their best intentions for them, that is you forward their actual interests (feeling secure, having lots of babies and being able to one up other women) on their behalf, all the ideological stuff would be windowdressing if not given hard power by the legal system and the resentful advice of other women.
People who demand respect are pathetic, and should be treated as such, otherwise they are emboldened.
The 19th was the greatest mistake in American history
@@bitcoinzoomer9994 19th what?
With right propaganda action, one would be able to influence women's minds. Additionally, there will always be (probably) a group of people with high fertility rate so I wouldn't be too afraid of becoming extinct.
My great-grandmothers were highly literate, they all had more than five children, one had eight. Their parents left their religious faith before they were born. Maybe we're the exception.
Could be the difference in reading material.
Every great grandmother had a lot of childrens.
Mine got 7
My grandma got 2
My mom got 3
My sister wants 0
But the housing crisis! Back then people could afford their iPhones and vacations with a single income, not anymore.
It was probably because they were not exposed to antinatalist propaganda yet.
@@SniperDizzyJohnythat's really bad. I hope your sister will change her mind, if you don't mind me saying this. There's nothing better in this world then to have children
Honestly I wish the US and Europe were more like East Asia in certain regards. While you can come back from population collapse eventually, immigration and ethnic dilution are far more permanent and damaging…
> While you can come back from population collapse eventually
Example of this happening in modern history?
Tell the population decline stuff to Ireland. They've still not recovered from the famines that were over 170 years ago. In a hundred years Japan, China, and Korea will be in a similar state having not recovered from their population collapses.
@@SerfinBird Ireland still one the country over1.5 birth
You clearly haven't read history. Britain, France, Italy etc have all had foreign peoples coming and settling for thousands of years.
@@trndsttr7585 yes and every time that’s happened the native inhabitants have been replaced and assimilated
I feel one of the main points often missed out by the right is the fact that children, from an economic standpoint are seen as a low-value commodity with an extremely high capex and opex in tandem with the wide availability of birth control & contraceptives AND the increasing literacy/educational rates of women. Once women are liberated from their traditional roles as homemakers and given the choice of wanting more or fewer kids, the fertility rate straight up plummets.
As a society's GDP increases and the citizens become richer, higher and more expensive standards arise as people demand better quality of life for themselves and their children which propels a cascade of constantly increasing prices of complex services which in turn also come into play whenever prospective parents think about having children.
TL;DR people think children are low-value commodities
@@delusion2987we have made people obsolete.
@delusion2987 no, there is only the illusion that they are.
The need for children to support you in your old age is still there, but the illusion that it isn't due things lime retirement plans and welfare have obscured this. People simplify lack the ability to think long term and/or lack the ability to think about what happens if the majority acts like they do.
You are saying they are are low values commodities but paradoxically but they are our future.
Without them there is no future.
Children may be the future but money saved right now is more valuable. Why deprive yourself of resources right now and lose the opportunity to build wealth yourself? Instead, you can count on your neighbor's kids to fund your retirement.
On strictly material terms, being selfish is the best decision.
And of course, nobody chooses to have kids, so there is no future for anyone. That's the classic Tragedy of the Commons.
@@No0dz As you put it since too many choose not to have kids the future will be the population collapse and ruin for many.
Imagine as well that community who have kids decide not to pay for elderly of other communities. That is a bad scenario that could happen. All communities for themselves !
I've read somewere that an average Muscovite woman had 12 kids in 1600s, during the rise of the Muscovite Tsardom and its evolution into Russia.
Do you know what condition these people were living?
@@sebsebski2829 Yes, they were in an evolutionary match, living in villages consisting of of 200 people top. They were almost entirely agrarian. They had harsh winters and needed childern as labour on farms and for soldiers against constant Turkic attacks from the east. They had high mortality salience and they were extremely religious, to the point that they saw themselves as Christians first and Muscovites / Russians second.
@@zorandusic7079 Yes, but dont forget to add that their economic condition were much worse than ours. So economy isnt the issue, its the gender opposite of men. As long as theyre taught that motherhood is the best for them, they will be mothers, as soon as its not they will run like headless chickens.
@@BuckNut-ck1sl You're forgetting about mortality salience, if there isn't constant death around to remind people of their own mortality, they will refuse to take serious and pivotal windows of opportunities as critically as they need to.
@DutifulCommentsWell, it also wasn't a big deal breaker when very likely the bastard child, if found to be such, could easily die of natural and "natural" causes and no one would bat an eye.
You forgot microplastics on the balls
_plastic is stored in the balls_
This comment is hilariously succinct and true. Toxins in the environment is definitely contributing to collapsing male fertility
@@nikobellic570makes sense now, Biden administration "importing" millions of border crossing "studs"-
Bi denomics
Are u joking?)
@@krtst No, check out phthalates, it blocks testosterone production and shrinks the size of male reproductive organs. Basically, it feminizes men.
Under every video about birthrates I see normies claiming that life is just too expensive these days to have more kids. And while I'm sure increased housing prices have played some role, it's just an obvious red herring. Why, if the problem is not having enough money, would it be all the richest countries on earth that have the lowest fertility and all the poorest countries that have the highest? It's purely a matter of what people are choosing to spend their money on, and in richer countries they have many more options. Anecdotally, among the (depressingly many) young women I talk to who say they don't want kids, not a single one has said the reason is because they're too expensive.
If you kept developed country kids at undeveloped country kids levels, you would be imprisoned for a while. Poor people have to neglect healthcare and food. Try that in a developed country and you'll be in prison for child neglect or abuse. It costs much more to have a kid in a developed country even in a poor part of a developed country.
Cost of living. A loaf of bread doesn't cost $10 in Niger. A house doesn't cost $500,000 in Niger.
And yet Boomers keep suggesting that we need to throw money and "incentives" at the problem, ironically if you took from and impoverished everyone that would incentivize them to reproduce, Darwinian conditions corrects, not money.
People in the poorest don’t even have birth control. Either they can’t afford it or have no education about it meaning every time a couple does the deed there is a chance of pregnancy. If you have access to birth control which most people in the world do now, you can choose when to have kids and plan for them financially.
@tann_man regardless of the increased cost of living, Western living standards are unequivocally better than Niger. There is a reason the West absorbs millions of African immigrants.
All of these are influencing factors. The collapse however, is about the meaning of life. A survey of DESIRED fertility among female Chinese college students found an average desire of 1.0 child/woman. This is before personal finances can even prevent births, so the actual fertility rate will be much lower than even 1.0. The US in 2007 was literate, urbanized, ~secular, and feministic, and yet had above-replacement fertility. Israel as well. It's about belief in life path. My father is a very anti-natalist, 'humans have ruined everything' type of guy, yet he has two kids. "We are animals, its what we do." My brother firmly believes he will never have children, he claims he is escaping his fate as an animal, in a sort of transhumanist way. He sees having children as unsustainable. Most of the youth see endless consumption, whether experiential (out on the town), or of the endless media that is digitally available as a satisfactory mode of life. Some of my (intelligent) friends with health problems think their genes aren't worth passing on, others think they would be incapable of raising a child. The primary difference between now and then is that then, humans were the most interesting feature of your world. You went outside, talked to women, had sex, had children, then had to take care of them. Now it is all optional. Add to this the fact that internet-raised children tend to be avoidant and risk-adverse, porn provides a risk-free alternative outlet for sexual desire, social media inflation of standards etc. etc. I can say confidently that the urban-leftist zoomers of America will have a fertility rate below 1.0. I think 0.6 for this group is quite likely. The Christian conservatives that retain the cultural value of raising children may sustain the overall rate at above 1.0. Its all about culture, about what you believe is possible and good for your life. The media culture of modernity has turned the masses against reproduction.
The risk aversion and obsessive planning is a huge deal I swear. There are so many young people that literally do not want to do anything in the "real world".
The tax on childlessness was a natalist policy imposed in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries, starting in the 1941. Joseph Stalin's regime created the tax in order to encourage adult people to reproduce, thus increasing the number of people and the population of the Soviet Union. The 6% income tax affected men from the age of 25 to 50, and women from 20 to 45 years of age.The tax remained in place until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This propaganda communist policy made the Soviet Union's birth rate always between 2.6-2,3 during the period 1960 -1990 .
And the Soviet Union was the first country in the world to legalize abortion in 1918 .But then abortion was Ban again in 1933 as a result of the birth rate dropping from 7.0 (1920) to 4.0 (1930)
.After the tax on chilliness was implemented (1941). Abortion was legalized again in 1955.
The tax doesn't work well, there had been such measures taken as far back as the Roman Participate and it didn't do much except delay the crash. Romania is a better example I think, as far as I know the ban on abortion there was lifted in 1990 after Ceaușescu's removal
@@orthodox-mp6hvRomania's birth rate in 1966 was 1.90 after the abortion ban policy. The birth rate rose to 3.66 in 1967 and then fell and stabilized at 2.3-2.5. until the policy was closed in 1990 and the brith rate collapsed again. but this proves that communism policies were successful in preventing population collapse in 1970.
@@orthodox-mp6hv All countries hope to get the sweet position of a birth rate of 2.3-2.5, not too high so that there is overpopulation and not low so that immigrants are needed to cover the shortfall.
Sounds horrible. Taxed into childbearing.
Taxed to exist, Taxed to no exist. Might as well kill myself.
Your first point is wrong! You could just as easily have claimed that the birth rate has fallen because women now also wear pants. Being able to read and write does not reduce the birth rate. Otherwise this would have already happened in Europe in the 19th century when compulsory education was introduced. But that didn't happen; on the contrary, the population in Europe grew enormously back then. It was urbanization that brought this about. Suddenly, it was expensive to have children and there was no benefit to having them as there was in the countryside where they could help with the work and you could have enough food for them by growing your own food. However, the mechanization of agriculture and the use of fertilizers meant that far fewer people were needed for food production than before. However, the poor African countries have not yet taken this step, or only partially.
Cope
@@TickleMeChelmno You again?
PowerSimplified1871
Wild guess you’re Indian lol
Go back to India
@@TickleMeChelmno It is not a guess. I stated it somewhere.
As a civil engineer listening to the "urbanist community" on youtube boils my blood. They are purely motivated by their hatred of cars and spitefulness. It has always been obvious that you don't have to go into logical extremes like american soulless suburbia or cage flats from hongkong. It is actually possible to construct nice liveable towns with decent public transport and that also have medium population density, you can just cleverly place buildings.
They hate cars because they give people options against the Left transit unions, and allow people to live outside the Left run cities. Are you starting to see a pattern here?
“Listening to the Urbanist community on RUclips boils my blood.”
Damn. I wonder what you think about NotJustBikes and Adam Something then lmao
Yep, I live in on the coast in a beach town, and it is relatively walkable despite being medium density.
Fuck cars. 😂
@@codysparks1454 I hate that Bike prick
I live in Germany and "make" €80.000/yr gross. Half of my paycheck goes to rent which went up 20% every 3 years, the other half goes to groceries, and utilities which keep rising every month or sometimes every trip to the grocery store. I have no car, no cell phone plan (prepaid €10/mo if I want to use it), and I am barely able to save, certainly not enough to buy my own place one day with my family. Something has to give.
Orthodox Christian? We must stay strong, and work with your church.
What part of Germany? This sounds like America
German here, 3 children, all grown ups. € 80.000 gross? In my prime with five to six jobs ( retired now, former main job second highest rank prof combined with several short time engagements as a lecturer) I made ca. 100.000.- gross p.a. Thats a lot of money even if you are not married. So something has gone wrong with your lifestyle/ housing. If you make, say, 50.000 net and half of that goes into rent you actually pay ca. € 2080.- per month for rent. And that is insane. Living alone for two decades I pay for a not too small (two living rooms) apartment in central downtown in a 70000 inhabitants city in NDS ca. € 800.- plus 115.- for a parking lot in a public parking house ( the lattter being far too much).
@@lowersaxon what city?
@@blue18404Lüneburg.
I can’t wait for your videos on potential solutions.
sometimes there are no solutions or they are unfeasible
@@GotMyTowel42I think there are solutions to this issue, my country came into positive birth rates when our government had a “baby bonus”, but after it was canceled my country slipped back into sub replacement territory, if the mormons in Utah can have such high birth rates, so can the general population if we encourage and incentivise certain traits.
@@Mick_Unfiltered The Mormons and the Hassidic Jews have a lot of children as mandated by their faith, they do not question. It's all a matter of ideology, the current widespread ideology is extremely anti-natalist.
Bro we need to reset the population, but it's gonna cost billions of lives
The solution is fairly illiberal, so I doubt even if he made one that it would survive the censor on RUclips
I dont like when people say american birth rates are failing to things like no martinery leave, or no free child care, because many countries have those things and still have falling birth rates. all 1st world countries have falling birth rates.
In fact most of Western Europe has those things and their birth rates are even lower than the US
Even with ab0rt1on it’s still collapsing.
yeah right, its a culturall problem!
@@ralfrudiger7276That means we need a population that has way less secular education and a significantly worse quality of life
@@litinup So back to the medieval times ? Only the clerus or those of blue blood or some rich merchants are able to read and the rest is just illiterate and lives in poverty but knows the bible very well thorugh the clerus?
Hearing a czech talk about a religious topic is interesting considering that the Czech Republic is probably the most irreligious country in the world
I think he's probably catholic.
unless you count shopping as a religion. The film Czech Dream nailed it.
We need to bring Christian religion back to our country ✝️
@@jirislavicek9954If you want a population that has almost no secular education and is probably going to end up xenophobic and limit human rights with garbage living standards and a high fertility rate.
then Christianity for the win ✝️
At least inflation won’t be a major issue anymore, but damn do you gotta sacrifice a ton of stuff
Christianity may make people happy to feel connected to god and have some sense of purpose, It will most likely mean that kids will weirdly enough be extremely happy despite awful living standards
So religion will make everyone insanely poor and happy with a sense of purpose
Never made enough money to get married, much less have children. I'm in my early 60s with a BA and I've worked most of my life. My sister has done better, but she never got married, either, she teaches at a public school and has an MFA and national teaching certificate. She's worn her body out. She's had surgery for bone spurs, had a knee replacement, and had surgery on one of her shoulders; she's always in pain now at 60. If you want more children, you have to pay people substantially more and make sure there's enough decent jobs out there. My sister wants to retire at 65, I plan to keep working into my 70s.
"Never made enough money to get married" You do not need to make money to get married.
"you have to pay people substantially more" This is exactly what has been done all over Europe and it has failed.
@@algernonsidney8746 False, it has never been tried in Europe. What has been tried in Europe is suppressing wages and job opportunities through mass immigration and paying peanuts as incentives to have children that won't even cover the costs of the child's first year expenses.
It's not about money at all. It's about culture, family structure and ties, and what is valued (evidently fleeting consumerist pleasures are more valued than children or family). It's about finite time to spend on things. Many chose career or education or entertainment or even frivolous dating/sex over spending time with their existing family, much less creating another. Distractions. You always had enough to build a family, since almost anyone can live very well by historical standards, and even if that weren't the case you only truly need the necessities which is also trivial in our time. You perhaps don't have enough by what you assume you need according to peers and media, but even that is questionable given everyone else is under the same influences and most still end up having children. Does it make sense for the individual to not sacrifice for others (children)? Perhaps, perhaps not. Since a large family with strong ties to oneanother is a considerable economic advantage in its own right and will be even more so in the future when things decline. Perhaps you are right in a sense, since people with weak or small families don't pool resources or gift labour within the family (e.g. for childrearing or jobs that instead someone is hired for at great cost). Personally, I think the lack of valuing children and family society-wide also says something very dire about people's psychology and character, which has broader implications.
But paying people literally does nothing. Hell, most people don't even save/invest enough because of lifestyle creep. Fact is the culture is basically just vulgar consumerism that scales to income.
The only solution for this is to disconnect the younger generation's contribution from having to pay taxes for the elder that is not their family. Otherwise, the younger will never accrue money for themselves nor have enough for their children and the problem will get worse and worse. The childless elder will not care as they will have no personal investment in society... they will vote for their own interests at the cost of other people's families. Finally, we need propaganda: "This is the loneliness and personal disaster that happen if you put job first and forget your family." Otherwise this will keep happening again and again every generation.
In Poland, people younger than 26 don't pay income tax.
I'm hightly doubting if this helps population growth.
Arranged marriage and the total destruction of social liberalism, money is less of a factor, though pensions and welfare are stealing by the childless.
@@vorynrosethorn903 The moral question is still on the table: If it is not good to have children for them to care for me, then why it is ok to require other people's children to do the same?
@@ppp-vz1mi A lot of pro-population policy has not been working so far, probably because social and civil inertia. But as society relies on an ever -shrinking working population, that policy will probably be paramount, especially if implemented collectively rather than individual incentives.
@@ppp-vz1mi Well, most people probably still learn till the age of like 23/24. Tax exemption till 30 would be an interesting experiment.
Personally, I think the main reason for falling birthrates is not even religion or house prices but simply women rights. And before someone starts hating on me, no I don't want to take women rights that's just my observation I think is true. In the past when women were basically assets owned by families to marry to a rich guy and were expected to be housewives raising kids there was no issue with birthrates and even if urbanization lowered fertility, it still stayed on above replacement level. Families played a major role, and houses were often multi-generational with all kids and marriages being a family affair. Women were also under massive pressure to have kids and have a husband otherwise she would be seen as a failure and ostracized. But ever since women rights started ramping up, women began to take active part in the workforce the whole social contract fell apart. Children are no longer seen as "wealth of the family" but more like a burden and financial responsibility, women that take part in carrier buildings don't even think about having kids and I don't blame them really. There is no reason to have one and it's almost like a hobby now to have a kid and it's like 80% only 1 kid which still is below replacement level. There are no longer family multi-generational wealth building, parents basically tell kids to fuck off at 18yo and go rent some small room in a city for 60% of your wage when back then the whole family would unconditionally help you raise kids. When women are most fertile between 16-30 and historically at this age were popping out kids are not spending their time on work while after 30 they become ticking biological bomb with each year increasing a chance of autism or some fucked up disability for their potential childbirth and are running out of eggs. I don't know what really the solution for that is, but the whole system is just dysfunctional at it's core and almost anti-natural. Add to that ultra feminist movements and mainstream narrative of children being the worst burden and making a childless woman into some symbol of power which makes things even worse. At this point even is some schizo would take women rights away they would still not have any kids anyway, it's just a completely different way of thinking and no matter with how much money you shower them with they will just not change. And if I were a woman, I would probably don't want any kid either to be honest. You can even see it in 3rd world countries that also have falling birthrates, it's not as if they stopped being poor it's just simply that they got some access to the internet and mobile network with women seeking work carrier mindset getting to them, so the birthrate is falling there too. For now developed countries help themselves by import whoever they can, but at some point, fertility will drop below replacement level everywhere and there will be no one to import. Then I think we will start see serious discussion about artificial wombs and state run raising facilities to keep the economy growing and at that point humanity alive. And China will most likely be the first one to do that.
Lol ticking time bomb of tism. Bro nothing happens if women have children over 30. My neighbor had a healthy son at 45. Having kids at 33 is even more safer.
@@rgonzalo511 That's why I said it increases the chances and there will still be healthy babies born after 30. But then literally every research shows how bad on average it gets after 30.
@@GoodieMartin It actually doesn't get that much more bad. The increase is only about 1-3 percent if I remember correctly. So technically yeah there's an increase but in practice it's minimal
@@rgonzalo511You got the stats wrong by an order of magnitude, it's 10% to 30%
I disagree that taking women's rights away will not solve the problem. It is clear women, given the choice, will not have enough children to maintain society. Unfortunately, society cannot allow for that choice, because it brings us to the situation we're in now. Yes, it's nice that women have rights, and they should, but if they do, then society will crumble.
That's one of the many problems we have in modern civilization. Sacrifice civilization for women's freedom, or sacrifice women's freedom for civilization.
I think simply not allowing women to work (or making it extremely difficult or limited) would be the best solution. Something like forcing companies to pay women a much higher wage than men should do the trick. This'll make it so outlier women can be productive, while the average women would have little choice other than pick a good man and stay at home to create a family.
What do you think bro?
Liked your comment for the correct observation. Unliked for being too pussy to say that womens rights need to be taken away to solve the problem.
When the population inevitably crashes, cost of living will crash with it, houses will become cheaper, the job market will become less competitive, then because life will become easier, people will start having lots of kids again, and then the cycle shall repeat itself.
Born too late to buy a home, born too early to buy a home
That population crash will come with a civilizational collapse - Forget cost of living because you won't be living, period.
Not that simple at all, most resources are owned at the top, the corps will buy it all up before you can make the capital. Also you will be crushed to pay for the elderly, and the society will be sectarian due to immigration.
In short the solution is not patience.
the problem right now isn't that there's not enough room in countries for houses. Its that houses have become a speculative investment instead of just a commodity. So homeowners and massive real estate companies want to see the prices of their property to increase - and one way to achieve that is to block the construction of new housing.
And a good portion of the population (the homeowners) are incentivized to not do anything to encourage housing, as anybody within the real estate system directly benefits from it becoming more expensive.
Personally I think the most likely "resolution" to this problem will arrive once the Western governments become too corrupt and incompetent to prevent people from building slums on land they don't own.
@@freddy4603 Lending / banks / insurance is a sure way to create a massive gap between pricing and reality. Since everyone can get a home through lending, it encourages lenders and constructors to compete for higher, not lower prices, since the amount of money a person has over a period of multiple decades is much more than what they'd have in the moment of a home purchase. This is also the problem with college and health costs. Due to lending (college) and insurance (Healthcare), the institutions providing education and health are encouraged to raise prices constantly, because they are separated from the consumer's money through the cumulative wealth of lenders.
If there was no such thing as a mortgage, the housing industry would be forced to find ways to lower prices through increasing supply or cost efficiency. If there were no college loans, then higher education would be forced to find ways to lower the cost, again, through increasing supply or cost efficiency. Lastly, if insurance were not a thing, then all industries which typically gain most of their profits from insurance payouts would also be forced to lower their costs to adjust to consumer demands.
IMO, In the US, for the most part, when the US was mostly rural, children were an asset: they contributed labor. As people migrated to cities children became a liability as they were not needed to contribute labor.
Always a pleasure seeing you upload. Insights is always appreciated, thanks
You forgot to mention the key point: cost of living is high. It's expensive to raise children, especially if only one (the man) has to pay for it all.
Hence, women kinda have to work in order to have an average living standard.
And then we can go back to the dichotomy between women in the work force and time for taking care of children.
No it's really not. Your great-grandparents had 8 children and lived in far poorer conditions that you today.
my grandmother was educated (yes in 1940s) and had 5 kids my mom was educated and had 3 kids my sisters have 0 and my peers want children with a wealthy man only. It is not the literacy that's changing mentalities.
Exactly its greed that's encouraged by capitalist system that's ultimately anti Christian and anti human
As for car-dependent, un-walkable suburbia consists of single family homes, I think it does help raising fertility rate, but only for one generation.
Living in such suburbia as a child who can't drive is, miserable.
I suspect such children are more likely to move to urban area after graduating high school and some of them never go back to suburbia, at least, this is the case for me.
In summary, while car-dependent suburbia can boost fertility rate, it also can boost urbanization.
IMO making suburbia un-walkable (it's ok to be car-centric though) can really inhibit suburbia from retaining population and communities in there.
I think you're right. It gives you the space necessary for having more kids but it strips livability, community, and is too expensive so most children grow up isolated and eventually find a job and an apartment in a city
This, right here, is absolutely 100% spot on. I didn’t grow up in a suburbia but I grew up in a rural area that required you to drive for at least 15 to 30 minutes if you wanted to go anywhere. This is one of the main reasons why I’m gonna be leaving the U.S. for Switzerland in 6 months, I just can’t live in a car dependent society.
You're right, we should all live like ants inside of hives 🙄
@@midragga because people needed motorized wheelchairs for the last 50,000 years?
also these suburbia kids are extremely shy and weird. compared to eastern european kids who colab outside. at least it was back then. now with this computers i guess even babushkas stay at home..
I met my wife at university. I´m 32, she´s 30. We have two children 4 and one year old in germany.
I study social sciences and wondered a lot about what the main problems are.
Men and Women at large are going in opposite directions politically, in terms of activities and also in values.
Third places are EXTREMELY needed. Places like churches, meetup places for students like a park, campus, cafeteria or just attractive places to be, meet, stay and enjoy the weather.
Society as a whole has become too soft, especially towards young beautiful women.
Consumerist Ideology to me seems to be the biggest issue, especially when not countered by good values.
Women are getting played by the system, never told the harsh truths, lied to nonstop for their money and they enjoy it.
I get it, everyone wants to sleep with these young women and noone gives them reality checks, not even their fathers and mothers.
I honestly wouldn´t blame young women as much as I would blame the Gen X and Boomer mothers. I´ve seen waaay too many marriages broken up by these mothers to believe anyone else is at fault. The then lack of father figures for both young men and young women is devastating.
Social Media and porn are a clear issues, sure, but that goes for both sexes.
In many parts of the world women just want too much before pregnancy, that´s not really needed.
I think the russian model is optimal, having children early between sometimes 16-18 and 25 before higher education. It makes much more sense in terms of the fertility window and also for education and the kids themselves. The first 3-4 years mothers are just too needed for the children, then after others like grandmother can take over and help, while the mother can then pursue other goals. Basicly a longer civil service insted of military service for men with lifelong benefits. Second and Third children become much easier to raise, with an older sibling around and gathered experience from the first child.
Another benefit of having children early is of course much better health outcomes for the children. The numbers of children with disabilities physical and/or mental are exploding here in germany and global...since mothers have delayed their family plans into their late 30´s and early 40´s.
Gouvernments in general shy away from proposing any changes toward their populations...especially females it seems.
I really think they´re scared of the unforseeable consequences most likely toward voting behavior.
It´s really wierd to me how noone dares to offend or reality check young women. I´ve seen it very clear in work environments.
Maybe Allegations, psychologcal warfare or the social weaponry of women is so feared that noone wants to be on the receiving end.
I can see a slow shift starting though. Young Fathers have an extremely high standing in public, mothers get educated or schooled a lot more.
Even online most bs of women gets called out now. I´m slowly even seeing a more cautious and critical approach toward female students and women in the university and work setting at least here in germany.
I must say though, the early to mid 20´s of a man nowadays are harsh. The late 20´s or early 30´s are so much better.
I´d advise young men to use opportunities such as carnival, traditional or local events to get to know people. Activities in a association/club/group are perfect to learn and get to know others.
Sorry if I sound like incel but how to even find a girl that would be ready for serious reliationship (including kids) in current times?
@@stackk.113 Read the last sentence of OP. I would add: get a large social circle and a lot of friends. That way you have a lot of friends of friends - potential GF if you click at some social event. Also are you good enough to get the GF you desire? Would she desire you? And I am not talking only about gym. Although that can help. But also not only about money. Although that can help too. I mean it even more generally - having life in order. And also ditch any negative feelings towards 'women in general' if you have them. No girl is 'woman in general'.
Never heard of the 'Russian model' is this an estabilished term to describe having children early with help of grandparents? Or just something that describes current situtation in Russia?
@@stackk.113 she's from a rural very remote area from the north sea of Germany we have very similar values, love nature, animals and enjoy the little things like community, she's not materialistic at all, a rare find I have to be honest. I had many disappointments before...had my first experiences with 14-16-18 year olds...as a 17 -18-20 year old. Times were definitely better before smartphones and dating apps. Most of them were from another school in the same small city. Never had any real success with dating apps.
@@saravandra I still don't have my life in order lol. I guess people not from Europe can't imagine what's possible within a good system, with Child care and parent money. Birth is completely free, taken care of by health insurance and the state.
Confidence is key. Abundance mindset. I gotta be honest I followed RSD, mainly Todd Valentine, who had some very good advice. I also like Owen a lot.
It's all about attitude. I guess I am her type, that helps. I'm average height slightly below average tbh. I was never slim, always strong some might call me fat or bulky. I've always been on the heavier side. I'm at 106kg atm. Optimal was 85-95 for me. The Cheat codes in my opinion are being happy without girlfriend, making intensions clear at the first date. Push and pull to spark interest helps, long walks together talking sealed the deal. Being able to let them go is the ultimate pull. Neediness is a big no-go, instantly kills any attraction. I stayed with her and had kids because I can be almost 100% myself with her. This had never been the case with any other before her. Basically have your own thing going for yourself does the trick. I always worked on improving my communication skills. I might be a little bit on the spectrum I don't know for sure. I had to learn many things the hard way.
I think economics are a big contributing factor for lower birth rates. People in poorer countries have larger families despite less means because standards of living are much lower. In poor countries with high fertility rates , children are seen as an asset as they can provide for the family. It is also socially acceptable to have 10 children living in a mud hut. Whereas in richer countries children are an economic burden and our standards of living are much higher. We want a quality of life for our children and if we were to let our kids live the way they do in 3rd world countries it wouldn’t be socially acceptable and you’d have your kids taken from you. So in order to give your kids a quality of life, it’s prohibitively expensive for some.
Some very wealthy (career) people I know in California have plenty of money for children but have none. Of course children would detract from the "all about me" lifestyle. And many of California's poorest have the most in way of children.
"and if we were to let our kids live the way they do in 3rd world countries it wouldn’t be socially acceptable and you’d have your kids taken from you." This is false in European countries parents are not taken away from their children if they live in poverty, they only get taken away if they are abusive or neglectful towards their children.
Total nonsense. It’s feminism.
Great work dude. I am curious about your future explorations of this broader topic. Thanks for the mention :)
The man the myth the legend.
Your less descriptive, more predictive-prescripritive videos are really good. Please make more of them
I think that decentralization of powers from states and central governments to municapabilitys would help. it would basically make each municapability a small population in small area that needs to treat themselves as a local family and local tradition maybe it would give someone a some sort of local patriotism and thus hope for more children. Sorry for my english 😊
Basically that is Orania in Africa, a white ethnostate with high fertility rates.
@@josepheridu3322 why you immediately accusing me of racism, is decentralisation really that bad?
@@Mr-Weiss The fact that you think a small white ethnostate is bad, just when someone offers a real-world comparison, is racism against white people. You would not make the same statement if he mentioned an Israeli kibbutz community.
@@Mr-Weiss He is not accusing you of racism
@@Mr-Weiss The problem is that it might become a Communitarian family. Which is very parasitic.
babe wake up, kaiserbauch just uploaded
what babe, this is the kaiserbauch fanbase we're talking about
Wake up babe lets make some children
@@heartsofiron4evercute femboy
Can you make a video about the Netherlands demographics and immigration please? I really like your work so please keep doing what you are doing👍
Jaa
I don't think it's that different in the NL than in any other western european country.
In a nutshell, you've become too wealthy and too developed. So in your society the family is no longer the smallest economic unit. So people have no incentive to stay together and have kids. And so the story goes...
People until 1960s: we want to spend time with our children at home after work. People in 2024: we want to watch YT videos and Netflix series and play games. 😁
Parents used to spend far less time with their kids in the past than they do now. Dads especially have never been more involved in their children’s lives than right now.
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 evidence? But even if this is true, it does not disprove that the incentives were as above I believe.
because there wasn't anything else to do
*vvomen
Fixed it for you
@@TickleMeChelmno but don't men want just the same though?
You brought up larger houses being good for fertility. A factor you didn't mention there is that, in urban areas with more larger houses, housing ends up being far more expensive, which would also negatively impact fertility. The topic of how to design a city so as to maintain the benefits of urbanism without toppling birthrates is a really interesting one, and isn't anywhere near as simple as "build larger houses".
You touched on the life cycle briefly when you mentioned the idealization of life in rural areas. When young people grow up, they find that there is not much to do (boring), thus striving to move to more vibrant cities where the actions occur. Then, meet a person and start to talk about family. For optimum growing-up conditions, they often look at suburbs and (preferable) single-family houses if they can afford them. Thus, observing lower birth rates in cities is expected. Cheers.
Technically, there is a lot to do in the countryside. Especially if you like outdoor activities. Cities have great PR though.
@@mateuszmisztela601The issue is if you are anything other than an introvert, there is little to nothing social to do in rural areas.
@@bobsteve4812 Yeah, depopulation of villages and smaller cities is a huge issue literally everywhere.
Animals are notoriously difficult to breed on farms, in labs, zoos. I reckon territoriality is a coded thing - you need to be certain you're on your own turf and have privacy.
I think urban dwellers shouldn't set rules for everyone, either - delineate metro area and apply their laws there only. Regular people maybe would do better if they perceived cities as sort of a transient thing - you go there to compete and make resources and experience to then use for living outside the city, or fail and be ground into oblivion.
On farms? Never heard of that
Factually incorrect. I grew up in a farming community. Farm animals reproduce naturally quite well. Excess animals are sold or used as a meat source.
@@winoodlesnoodles1984those are post domestication animals
Animals in zoos are difficult to breed. However I think a huge part of it is our poor understanding of their nutritional needs (combined with sheer lack of budget). What constitutes essential vitamins is different for different animals, and giving them their natural food might be too expensive. (For example, giraffes are fed hay but in the wild they never eat grasses.) Zoo animals are often noticeably smaller than their healthy wild counterparts.
@@mistersir3020 lol at the low-key implying that animals and people don't need their own turf but need to be fed a better slop xd
I think women are afraid of the physical pain of child birth process as well as the 9 months to bring a baby to term. That’s not even to mention the massive cost in time to care for children speaking of both women and men. However women can’t even be sure man will take care of them (relationship insecurity). Both can’t be sure of a steady income (job insecurity). Both men and women are lothe to give up career, hobbies, and free time for children. They dont think of passing on the family name, or other such things, but only think of current worldly pleasure
the physical pain is nothing and you can ask anyone (only the first is worst and if you have enough, you won't even know you were pregnant until you went to labor)
it's just that too many women were given too much independence and they think they're above the "bondage" to motherhood or at best have their single child when dead near 40
@@saagisharon8595While I would disagree with you in regards to childbirth being almost ‘painless’ it is certainly true that many women, in the developed countries especially, tend to delay childbirth in favour of their careers, not realising that they are nearing the end of their reproductive window, and, as such, despite wanting to have several children, end up with only one or none at all. There exists a lack of knowledge/general awareness about this issue which needs to be discussed more
well said
Why would anyone care about passing on a family name? What’s so special about my surname or anyone else’s that it needs to exist in the future? There might be a future with nobody with my surname eventually why would I care it’s just a word?
Never understood why people are afraid to give up hobbies for children. I have two dogs and love taking care of them, caring for children would be a better version of being a dog parent. Children are more work ofc but the basic idea is the same.
25:15 You touch briefly on the "urban planning crowd" -- I do think there is more to explore here. The world has moved a lot towards "top down" approaches, centralized (even global) planning, highly specialized skill sets, and I do think that's part of the issue. People who favor everything being master planned will also do this in their personal lives. You can only master plan things using existing and known concepts. You can master plan a house using known existing building materials but you can't master plan a house with novel materials. When you're planning your personal life, you, your spouse, your kids, are all novel unique humans. You can't master plan your entire life. You have to jump in and figure it out as you go at some point. So the master planning types will have trouble settling down because no spouse is exactly how they wanted it and it's never quite the right time to have kids. That's why people have pets because they're submissive conforming companions. Higher education heavily steers people toward centralized planning .
That's a very interesting take.
I got my degree in urban planning and work in the department of Finance in one of the largest US cities.
The urbanist utopians you described are not real urban planners but activists who do not actually work in the industry.
Real urban planning in America is completely based in the free market and is essentially a study in economics and management.
However the Jane Adams types do have an impact because they get into power via elected officials and grassroots organizations
@@StayFreshMyFriends Interesting. Can you elaborate on what you mean with "free market"? It seems to me that the zoning laws , subsidized public transport, rent control, things like that aren't really free market based. I'm not disagreeing with you just trying to learn something.
@@castirondudeall of those things interact with the free market and the market adapts to them. My state actually banned rent control so I don't know how the urban planners in California or New York feel about it, but where I am no serious planner advocates for rent control.
I think population collapse and subsequent collapse of civilization will not happen, because societies will respond to new conditions. People adapt to environment.
If you lived in 70s and 80s, there was a widespread fear that population explosion would lead to widespread food shortage resulting in calamitous decline in living standard and steep rise in social instability. (See movies like Soylent Green)
However, this eventuality did not come to pass because of 2 things:
1. Agriculture changes - consolidation of farming business leading to economy of scale and better exploitation of land; widespread use of fertilizers (Haber-Fritz nitrogen today creates more bio pass than soil bacteria nitrogen fixation today) and pesticides achieving previously unimaginable crop yield; drastic reduction in transportation cost (you can ship 1 lb of stuff from Asia to America for few cents). In summary, a huge boost in food production and distribution was achieved.
2. Culture change. Yes, there is feminism and gender equality in employment. But when you are told constantly that there are too many people in the world, your view eventually changes. I've come to believe that the value of reproduction is not critical, and made forming a family and raising children an optional endeavor in life. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this regard, and probably contributed to the problem discussed in the video.
My prediction is that as population starts to decline, there will be a culture shift, and more people will be inspired to have children. Also, it's a safe bet that there will be technological breakthroughs and institutional reforms to help as well. These things take time - it took about half century for population explosion to be corrected. I think it will take similar amount of time for population collapse to be fixed as well.
It is exactly that opinion on having children being an option which got us here in the first place. Don't you care about those who came before you? Those who hunted their entire lives, those who toiled in the fields and died in battle? All that so their families could live, all that so YOU could exist now.
I find the thought of not having kids as unacceptable. My, and my family's continued existence is the only mark my ancestors, and 99.9% of the populations' antecedents left on the world. I will not allow their lives and sacrifices to be meaningless
Sorry for the rant, I feel strongly about this😅 Have a nice day bro
Its already happening.
I think none your ancestors care whether you leave a legacy as they are all dead.
All the things that you brag about,your ancestors did those things not because they wanted to but because they needed to.
Cultural norms and societal expectations played a huge role in shaping their lives.
Nowadays,people are much more free to do whatever they want with their lives.They've also realised that there is more to life than to follow a predefined script that has been pushed upon them by society.Geeting married and having a family being one of them.
Speaking of your ancestors you probably don't know much about them and even those dating back from the caveman days.
Why attribute so much importance to a bunch of dead people that you don't even know and haven't even met in your entire life.
And tell me what is so precious about your genetics that it should be replicated into the future.Your genes will eventually get diluted in 3 or 4 generations.
@@bitcoinzoomer9994 I think none of your ancestors care whether you leave a legacy as they are all dead.
All the things that you brag about,your ancestors did those things not because they wanted to but because they needed to.
Cultural norms and societal expectations played a huge role in shaping their lives.
Nowadays,people are much more free to do whatever they want with their lives.They've also realised that there is more to life than to follow a predefined script that has been pushed upon them by society.Geeting married and having a family being one of them.
Speaking of your ancestors, you probably don't know much about them and even those dating back from the caveman days.
Why attribute so much importance to a bunch of dead people that you don't even know and haven't even met in your entire life.
And tell me what is so precious about your genetics that it should be replicated into the future.Your genes will eventually get diluted in 3 or 4 generations.
@@bitcoinzoomer9994 Please have children to pay for my social security in 30 years if I make it that long
May it be that the deconstruction of the "tribe" is one of the primary reasons for a decline in birth rates?
The social "tribe" structure may be most beneficial for high birth rates. It would also be one explanation why villages on average have higher birth rates.
If you compare different societys around the globe you could make an argument that east asias social structure is the farthest away from the original tribe structure. American suburban live seems closer. When you think about the concept of a "neighbourhood".
When you have all generations and sexes living together and in contact with each other it is way more obvious for young people (especially woman) what it means to grow old without a family.
In Vienna there are new city concepts which basically recreate a village in a city block with all generations living together and most basic needs available in your block. This could be a solution but definitely needs further research.
Europeans abandoned the "tribe" thing thousands of years and still has high fertility rate.
@PowerSimplified1871 his use of tribe is clealry talking about the relationships between people. A "close-nit intergenerational community of the same same culture" doesn't roll off the tongue as well as "tribe"
I agree with you!
Relationships between people is key .
People are much happier in tribe. It is my belief.
As well i protects you from insecurity .
It is a more collectivist mindset.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Definitively
I would even argue that the tribe in it's optimal form (probably between 100 and 300 people, up for debate and will most likely vary through many factors) is the balance between individualism and collectivism.
You could than project this order upwards to organize tribes into clusters and further to create a higher structure of society.
This would be something like a democratic hierarchical order.
Women aren't having children because women neither need men to provide and protect (they have the government for protection and ludicrously one-sided policies that benefit women at the expense of men in the academic, legal, and employment spheres for provision), nor children to care for them in their old age (they have the government for that, too). Most women never really cared that much about either men or children, but the circumstances of the times before the 1920s, and certainly those of the times before industrialization, meant that not having a man or children was near certain doom for a woman. Nowadays, with the government taking care of all of their needs, women are mostly choosing hedonism over family. Collapsing fertility reflects this.
This is ultimately a self-correcting problem, as the same governments that are causing the problem by doing everything for women are also pyramid schemes that cannot afford to continue satisfying the welfare and sinecure promises that they have made with a shrinking working-age population. When the economic can can no longer be kicked, the government guarantees will go away, and the hard times will force women's hand once more.
I do not hate men and to say most women is insane. I also do not hate kids. We were given no choices for a long time. Into the 1970s we were still fighting to even have credit cards and freedom of choice. Are you really ok with women being enslaved by the policies of the governments? It's wrong! I think that you need to really thinnk about this situation. Child bearing is dangerous! A lot of women die in pregnancy or during labor, or they have still born babies. Also 90% of the work for family falls on women! So why owuld I want that?
You don't understand if men woudl just step up and actually take care of the kids they claim they want and treat their wives with respect then they wouldn't have this problem. I will never get married or have kids but I have a healthy relationship with my father and other men around me, I also love my nieces and nephew! I was like a second mother to them in some cases. I think that you just like to paint women with broad strokes.
If I do that I would say 99% of the men are too lazy to even take care of themselves! That is why we stay single!
The fate of humanity…rests on daddy gov… what can go wrong…
In some cities of Western of Europe it is becoming very dangerous.
Have you been to Paris lately? The city is more and more dangerous.
The suburb is even worse. Times are difficult for women walking alone.
Barbarians are at the gate and some women do realize it as well.
Women' rights may not be permanent and it is decreasing in western europe due to an alien culture.
Suburban single-family homes also have lots of negatives: less close neighborhood bonds, isolation, the need of commuting and its mental health effects.
MENTAL HEALTH IS FOR LOSERS
Versus the alternative of living in an apartment building next to criminals and delinquent most of which being foreigners and not having enough room for your kid to actually have any type of a life
Not nessiarily. The majority of American style ones, maybe (and even the there is data about the opposite, outside of the commute). You can and there are walkable community suburbs.
MENTAL HEALTH IS FOR LOSERS
Suburbs in america are actually pretty great to live in honestly. Most people who hate how " souless" they are just want to pave over them to make a 40k hive city.
I mean, I think that multiplex and transit-oriented suburbs are nicer, healthier places to be in than the endless repetition of single-family McMansions that my parents live in.
I quite like Dutch suburbs, although I've only visited them for a couple of months. I find them much more pleasing to the soul and body, and yet they do have the space and ownership that many people want. Just my two cents!
"Suburbs" are the American equivalent of Soviet commie block buildings.
family friendly does not have to come on the expense of environmentally friendly, but america doesn't want to hear it
@@saagisharon8595 the cities in America are the most filthy polluted parts of the country, the suburbs at least preserve some nature around them with parks and the like. And your right we could do a better job at planning cities but in America at least people move to the suburbs to escape the cities and cars aren't the reason why.
@@kaiserrichard2017 don't you get it?
either the car manufactures or the oil tycoons lobbed to have america designed this way
it also doesn't help to have a nimby attitude
Lee Kwan Yew understood this a long long time ago… and he said he couldn’t solve it. That’s from the seminal genius and greatest statesman of the century.
So we are fucked
Singapore has how much placement birth rate?
The higher fertility rate for people in bigger houses is absolutely related to people who have kids deliberately moving to bigger blocks, not because having a bigger house makes you have more kids. My childless friends mostly live in smaller places in the city, and then when they have kids, they move out to the suburbs so the kids can have space to run around. What would even be the point of paying for a huge house and garden if you're just a 30 year old bachelor who lives alone and spends most of their time working/partying/on hobbies, etc?
While people who have kids try to move out to larger homes, it's also true that people who want kids often put them off untill they can afford larger homes. There is numerous statistics that support both.
Kind of difficult to hint at it as a possible negative root cause, but it may be the abundance of potential and options.
The pressure still exists, but we are spending more time with the selection rather than acceptance.
Looks like the west has lost the "Mandate of Heavens"
No no. Humanity as a whole lost the mandate of heaven.
Tell me you think your country is somehow special and will escape this impending global crisis without telling me ahh comment
@@Gwhnher Still have a lot more time left.
@@viskyboi1275 If above replacement birth rates in the mandate of haven, then the only place with a mandate of heaven is sub-Saharan Africa.
@VshapeDino Many that are last shall be first, and the first last. 1988 was the end of the 'church age'. God separated the wheat from the tares by telling the wheat to come out from among them - churches were given to Satan to destroy. 1994-2011 was the 'latter rain' outside the churches worldwide. Those elect are at a much higher percentage in SE Asia, India, middle eastern countries than the unfaithful western societies. May 21, 2011 was the beginning of judgement day on the world { you were warned }
And it shall come to pass in that day, a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor. "tumult" = disbelief & confusion ( on the unsaved of the earth)
Division is the result for the destruction of mankind.
spoiler alert: 'last day' = 2033
there are probably more of God's elect in China than in all Europe and the America's ...half the worlds population lives within 1000 miles of Singapore.
The bible gives a figure of 200 million total throughout all of history, with majority alive now (150+ million ?)
Я полагаю что единственная реальная значимая причина снижения возраста рождения первого ребенка - высокие ожидания населения. За последние 60 лет производительность труда выросла многократно. Однако есть физический барьер в виде КПД передачи энергии. Мы достигли предела развития как высоко развитое общество, которое сжигает топливо и перерабатывает ископаемые материалы.
Подобно тому как вода в плотине ГЭС застыла в высшей точке и медленно выбрасывает излишки не изливаясь огромной волной, так и человеческое общество исследует границы этой плотины, не подозревая, что вершина недостижима.
Есть два пути выхода: 1) ещё одна кровавая война, которая обнулит надежды на счастливое будущее всех сразу 2) Каждый лично для себя поймет, что хорошего будущего для своих детей не настанет никогда и лучше рожать сейчас. Второй путь доступен не всем и связан со сложным осознанием своего места в мире. Люди же всё чаще предпочитают не делать выбор, и в случае собственной мнительности люди предпочитают закончить свой жизненный путь сейчас.
Нет СССР с его коммунистическим будущим. Нет также свободного капиталистического государства с социальными элементами, ведь коррупция забирает плоды труда населения а СМИ внушают ложные идеалы, которые недостижимы.
Не могу поверить, что попы и кто-нибудь ещё может повлиять на девушку типа как: "Хей, тебе уже пора рожать, выходи замуж". А она такая: " Ок, да, реально".
Я не думаю, что с рождаемостью есть какие-то проблемы. Все дети которые не рождены сейчас, могут быть рождены благодаря развитию медицины позже. Частично именно благодаря развитию медицины происходил рост населения после второй мировой войны. Однако существуют объективные причины почему рожать слишком поздно это вредно. Из-за капитализма есть предел распространения технологий (речь не о пределе развития, а об именно про массовое применение) . Боюсь самые передовые технологии останутся преимуществом богатых стран.
Единственный значимый для меня показатель - количество работающих людей к числу пенсионеров. Я думаю, что всеобщая система пенсионных накоплений будет упразднена. Это реально то, что меня пугает.
You are very right about us reaching the limits of usability of fossil fuels...
While likely not sufficient on its own, I think a necessary step for reconciling the aspirations of women with the demands of a family would be to institute 20 hour work weeks.
Taking care of children and a home is a full time job, which in previous generations had traditionally been left to the wife, with the husband serving as the breadwinner. As women have entered the workforce there has not been a corresponding decrease in work expected by the husband, meaning that total aggregate time a couple spends working had effectively doubled, leaving no time for homemaking. At a societal level we have allowed the economic engine to double the time it extracts from the population, and while production has increased dramatically, it had come at the cost of our investment in creating future generations.
Well noted every one does not want to talk aboput this. I expect it is due to it going against the Liberal value of exuality and Feminisms equality to live like a man. Everyone wants to be equal even if they dont realise it. The Christian idea of complenting each other is the colsest you can get to a solution. Gives a fertility boost and praises mothers.
@@BeachandHills-hb2pq To be clear, my proposal represents a new way not a return to the differential division of labor. Instead of a stay at home mother and a full time working father, I'm suggesting that halftime work weeks become the new standard (20 hour work weeks). In that way both parents would share working and homemaking duties.
The garden city concept is an attempt to combine the best of both city and rural areas. The video author may find it interesting to read up on.
They are functionally superior to the sprawling suburb concept.
Sprawling suburbia sucks because its illegal to build anything but houses. Its empty and isolating.
Debt, socialism, urbanism, feminism, over population, lack of family values, college/university
Gotta love the cope
@@Pioneer_DE ?
socialism??
@@Pioneer_DE What cope? Who raised you, dog?
@@WastedBananas Yes, 50% of GDP in EU is spend by state.
You havent lived in capitalism for decades.
I already gave up, this country (Czech Republic) has no future and governments in last 20 years did nothing with this problem, so we will all die in next few decades, already now, people have to work in their 80s becuase there is noone who could replace them on their well qualified work place and this problem will be even worse.
They are surprised that people don't want kids anymore....in situation when your salary is 30 000 CZK and rent of flat is also 30 000 + no kindergartens availavble, which means that one parent has to stay home with kid for years, it's just not possible to have kids, it would be economical suicide, kids are only for rich people or for people who don't care that their kids will be living in shits. I grew up in shits and I will never bring kids to that too, like when you can't pay their school lunches and these things....
State is doing nothing, it doesn't matter if it's ODS, Babiš or ČSSD, they are all useless and didn't solve anything, this country is lost, everyone will move to Poland in future.
@DutifulComments Welcome to our world, western prices, eastern salaries. 😀 Problem is that we have really extreme bureaucracy, when you buy a land, it can take even 15 years before they finally let you start with construction, that's the main reason why housing is that expensive, we need more new apartments to be finished to make it cheaper, but mafia politicians don't want it for some reason (corruption I guess).
Another thing is UNESCO and sight keepers generally, they won't allow anything to be built. Ofcourse one advantage is that our cities look nice and historical, but we live in open space museum, it's good only for tourists. When you go to Vienna and you see what they are doing, like massive hole to underground next to gothic cathedral....that would be never allowed here.
Another thing (you already mentioned it) is aribnb + army of so-called expats who move here because it's cheaper for them, but they still earn US money, so these people also increase prices, nobody speaks Czech in Prague anymore, you need English even in your mother city.
And ofcourse energy crisis and it's not true that it's everything because of war, it started already before with some big companies going bankrupt and people over night got like 10 times higher bills for electricity. In country where everything works and government is not just bunch of scammers and liars, state would not allow this. We live in so-called "wild capitalism" since 90s. When your flat owner says that your rent will be 10 times higher since tomorrow, it's gonna be like that, you can't do anything. Everything social is considered communism here, but in name of communism beating, we created something even worse.
In USA, they also have that wild capitalism, but you are at least not forced to pay healthcare and all these things. Here you have to pay it, but then you have to go to private doctor and pay again, because health care is not available because of another crisis in healt system.
It's really gone here, there is no hope.
Only hope is wait until that generation of politicians who is reasponsible for 90s stealing finally dies and we need to completely restart our country and start again.
They will need to pay people to have kids but the governments are too cheap
isnt chezhia the most successful country in europe with higher birthrate and better society than poland?
@@TheSwedishHistorian Not anymore, we are just surfing on our past right now, but that can't work forever.
Slovenia and Estonia already overpassed us in living standard, Poles are massively investing to infrastructure, they have new highway, they will have fast trains soon, when they decide they will build something, they will start building it, they are attracting investors and solving housing crisis by massive constructions of apartment buildings. It's too late to start competing in this fight for us. We had advantage in 1989 because there were still people who remembered capitalism and renewed their old companies + our country was not that damaged during WWII, but other countries had 34 years when they actually worked, we didn't work, we were just saying "we are better than them, Germans come here and invest" but it doesn't work anymore.
I will just give you one example of how it doesn't work here - our fast trains for example, we are talking about starting with construction for 20+ years and we still did nothing, but each government is giving promises that they will finally do it and then one villager says NO, it's not gonna be in my village and it's everything on start, plans are scrapped, bilions of CZK are burned with no results, this is how it works here, this country is lost.
I am visiting Poland pretty often, I see their progress, their minimal salary will be soon higher than what a lot of people earn here + they have like half prices of housing and food.
Our country is based on low paid work for German companies, but this economical model doesn't work anymore, a lot of economs are saying that it's not gonna work anymore and we have to do something now, because after another 15 years, it's gonna be too late.
A lot of massive investments were canceled in last years because of our buerocracy or nonsense requirments from our country, so they are moving to Poland.
@@marcusj9947 they don't need to literally pay, just solve kindergarten problem would help, at least something
What we have created in modernity is unhealthy and unsustainable. We will have to scale back either way. Infinite growth is a dangerous corporate illusion that society has adopted. My guess is that as things get worse and scale back, there will be more room for growth as there would be in an ecosystem, whereby there are limits to growth. Let's hope it does not result in baby factories or Handmaid's tale style scenarios.
The current job market is detrimental to having kids, too. No responsible parent is going to have 3+ kids in a volatile employement market.
It seems to me that the legal aspect is also important. Now the law is almost always on the woman’s side. In a divorce, the woman is almost always the beneficiary. Alimony for her and the child. The child is in most cases with a woman. The woman has very great protection, even though this is done at the expense of the man.
I looked at one lawyer. He said that the family code is about property. There is nothing about any moral issues. If a woman (or a man) cheats, there will be no legal consequences for them. The judge will normally only consider the issue of marital property.
If everyone can leave at any time, then as soon as someone doesn’t like something, he will leave. Previously, if someone left, most likely each of them would die of hunger and would receive condemnation from others.
Sorry about my English.
Mgtow is cope. Guess what? A million other men will take your place so your point is moot. It’s not a real argument. Stop blaming men for the choice of vvomen.
The true problem with western society today is that there is no consequence for failure. As you say, you stop working with your family and some if not all of you may die in premodern times. You stupidly gamble all you money away, used to that could be the end of you. You make horrible business decisions and are about to go bankrupt there would be no bailout coming. You simply decide you don't want to work anymore you don't even have to spend our time begging like the old days, just go down to you local government office and act like you cant get a job even though you intentionally make sure the interviewers will not hire you and you will get free regular checks from those who actually do work and pay taxes.
Not at all in Eastern Europe where the creator lives. Child support is given to the custodial parent but unlike the US, both parents can get custody if they so wish which results in no need to pay child support... but the men usually pick child support over custody.
Only assests obtained in marriage and therefore by both partners are split.
To get alimony after divorce, one partner has to have serious problems preventing employment like disability and it is only for a limited amount of time.
I think that the decrease in Testosterone levels in men are also responsible for the demographic change. When food and hygiene products pump estrogenics into mens body on a mass scale, we can expect that they will have higher rates of infertility and not have the responsibility required to have children.
Good point, I recall reading that around a quarter of finnish men are functionally sterile. I believe environmentalists would be able to reach out to more men if they spent more time hammering home the point that our current industrial society is making you fat, sick and sterile.
You are absolutely right in your video, but I could bet money that your audience is at least 90% male. We boys need to talk about this topic with women. We need to have an open and non-threatening conversation with them if we want to solve the problem.
Hahahahaha, yeah let's try and logic women into making massive risks with their social prestige, I'm sure telling them about problems will really help them.
Not, create solutions and then open the door to womem, a collaborative process is part of marriage, but not of relations between the sexes and engaging on that level is like trying to negotiate land rights with monkeys.
>half the comments here are blaming feminism and women's rights
good luck with that
Modern women despise 95% of men, good luck with that
More like 99%
trust me, talking nicely about the issue doesn't work. society is pretty much brainwashed.
This series better end up with a "how to get a gf" video
"Why you need a boyfriend" series. Looking for a core problem!
@@happyelephant5384 That would be the case if he were a female
make no mistake... women still want to have children with a partner. They are just waiting to be barely fertile and lonely to start trying.
@@Eltipoquevisteayerwell in other video kiserbauch said he had a wife and maybe a kid so if he can we should also be able to
@@badembadem6500 No excuse then
as someone who is anti-suburbia, the problem with suburbs isn't that everything there is bigger and far apart, it's the fact that separation and *honestly soulless* copy-paste environment disincentivizes effective investment in infrastructure. This is honestly best exemplified by the insanely rare 'streetcar suburbs', or suburban regions with close-together multi-room houses linked via public transportation to commercial or business spaces is one answer, and multi-family housing in suburban regions is another (duplexes, triplexes, ect). The problem with most suburban regions is that because there's no transportation and no third places, it cripples the sense of community that both urban and rural areas can cultivate and that's why there's an opioid epidemic in places like america.
6:47 - that's naive. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot just cherry-pick good aspects of modernity and reject the rest unless you create a hugely centralized state.
Why shouldn’t we?
@@blugaledoh2669 Well...count me in lol
@@blugaledoh2669 That's what China is trying to accomplish, look how it's turning out. It's got its efficiencies and perks, but count me out.
@@RA9U1 100% China will sooner or later start growing children in artificial wombs in giant factories, and then raise them collectively. Maybe they will be able to build quasi-socialism.
@@RA9U1 Not really, China has always been like that. China can be summed perfectly by "the more things change the more they stay the same" It's a collectivist, hierarchical society, it always has been. Whether the dynasty is called Han or Song or Tang or the CCP it doesn't matter.
It’s so hard to figure out, it’s not religiousness- as Iran now has collapsed rates (and Saudi is fast approaching)
It’s not poverty because both India and Brazil are sub replacement
It’s not feminism because Korea is far lower then liberal Sweden
It’s not racial because Barbados and African Americans are below birth rate of Czechs
It’s not even rural/urban because Polands rural fertility rate is lower then many western countries urban one.
So what really is it?
It does not seem to be a single factor but rather a set of factors that make the birth rate low. However, Israel seems the exception.
@@georgep.s.f.r.5397 to be honest the mindset of Isreal is very different from the rest of the world, Almost exterminated and surrounded by enemies, can’t be replicated anywhere else
India is not sub replacement lol its at 2.1 which is replacement level.
Women’s education, empowerment and employment is negatively correlated to fertility rate. The UN has been selling that as a solution for overpopulation. S. Korea has rabid feminist group pushing gender wars, female president and the 4b movement. That are absolutely affected by feminism. Not the sole reason but def a contributing factor
@@WastedBananas the 2.1 figure isn’t universal, counties with higher infant mortality like India need 2.2 plus.
But sure, it’s at replacement and dropping fast, will be projected to be 1.9 by the end of 2025 I feel my point still stands
from a woman standpoint: what is the point of me being with a guy who is irresponsible and cannot take care of me any my children and being extra child?
that is why women don't want to have kids and start fnailies, because guys want rights and no responsibility in child care and upbringing and expect not only for women to work, bring money, food, take care of the kids, whike their husbands will have leisure drinks after work (if they even work in the first place), and I have seen many man behave like that growing up and still to this day, being momas boys not able to frx two eggs for themselves while starving and wonder why no women wants to date them... your partner is your partner, not a parent.... that is why women like "rich" or just more traditional men who take care of them because they are actually grown up adult, not some guy who has (insert number) of baby mamas, no job, no drive and puts zero efffort in dating and complaining about women, while they also expect women to be 10/10 instagram model looks, breadwinner girlies who will mother them... I don't know who is to blame for that situation tho, I hear many people both men and women having a struggle in dating and I do believe there is a good man and women out there and there is possibility fir healthier relationships... I would blame social media, dating apps, certian adult sites and inabillity for many people to grow up and become actual adult (what ever that also means to people) and get their shit together as people would say... I also believe there is something with baby boomers being the largest population currently living and them all disappering one day will make birth to dead ratio scary in numbers, modern families have 1-3 kids in general, while babyboomers (my grandma for example) had 7 siblings, but only 3 making it to adult age tho, so yea it is not only younger generations to blame and I believe in free choice to either have kids or not and all demographic field for me is voyaristic to say the least and it doesn't take people as people, it treats people like number
The irony. You are probably not aware of it, but you indirectly stated that women tend to fool around with irresponsible ones. Maybe start dating responsible guys before blaming men for womens mistakes.
finally, a sane comment in a sea of insane people, who always blame women and consider themselves perfect, we'd be better off if we understood the other person and treated him/her with respect, instead of someone to blame
Sounds like just have poor taste in men.
Dating experience and dating culture creates that type of guys
The responsible guy does not have time to go and party with his friends all night long and look for casual segs
He studies, works and keeps whoever he has with him afloat while also keeping a few free moments for meaningful conversation with women ...
But that type is considered too nice for you even though most of us would probably sacrifice our own lives for you in a time of crisis
@@cybernd78Exactly, that's the problem of female sexuality. They find the traditional, modestly dressed, settled, working 9 -5 job guy boring. They want the "bad guys", rockers, rebels, but then they are surprised when this "free thinking" guy leaves them or doesn't care about his children.
You should take a look at the effects of "the pill" on fertility. Multiple economics papers look into its effect in the labor market, which you could use in your videos.
Great summary! Stellar work!
The world map of religions is in Catalan! Uoooo my language in a kaiserbauch video! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
i thought what the fcking language it was. looks like french but some esperanto bs..
So basically… women going to school has led to the decline of humanity…
If your only measure of humanity’s level is birthrates. 🙄 Modern conservatives clamouring for less developed times because of high birth rates are like Queers for Palestine: Neither would probably survive a single day in the society they endorse.
At least KaiserBauch himself was honest enough to acknowledge he wants to preserve as many of our modern conveniences as possible. Many others seem to almost hope for society to collapse, so that “hard times can create strong men again”. Apparently not realising that this cycle they like to cite so often inherently makes any pursuit of progress - any pursuit of “good times” - pointless.
In muslim world women go to school but don't working. So they Married at 24 years old
Have more kids everyone. We can weather the storm 💪
I like that attitude! Only doom and gloom in these comment sections.
Easy to say, me and my girlfriend are okay with starting a baby factory but it's really expensive to rent a one bedroom apartment. Not to mention how expensive it is to buy a family house.
Nazi breeder
With what women?
@@barneysoldierson54 Dude just move to a small town
The bigger question that needs answering is... why do we even care if the population drops? The reality is that we measure this drop mostly since the baby boom, which was a very short while ago historically speaking. And it was not like the nations of the world before this boom didn't live well or happily. It seems like the boom was an exception, and we are slowly going back to the norm. Which is nothing frightening, this is nothing like the demographic collapses after famines or wars or other cataclysmic catastrophes.
The biggest problem here is the increasing number of old people. Living in "old" society is just problematic for many young people.
@@mateuszmisztela601 Sure, but it's a problem that fixes itself with time.
@@Wind_Falcon Not if the number of people keep decreasing ad infinitum
Because if the western economy collapses, there will be violent civil conflict between the immigrants and natives
@@mateuszmisztela601 We have no reason to think that will happen though.
Outstanding video. Balanced, objective analysis, clearly expressed and illustrated, and complete. I'm subscribing and looking forward to viewing the rest of your catalog.
Aside from revoking women's rights back to 19th century level, the only thing I can imagine working would be paying women to get pregnant and give birth. As in, one could make a career out of making babies and delivering them to the state so that they can be raised in a communal environment.
Quite frankly, even if the ideas of making up a new religion or improving housing society-wide were executed perfectly, I can't imagine them making enough impact to improve fertility by more than 0.1 - 0.2
Pay some to donate eggs, pay or force foreign to carry them.
Dystopia
The type of consultant the CCP would pay for. 😅
@@lchig0 I don't like it either, I just think this is genuinely the most realistic option if the goal is going above replacement.
Personally I just don't think low fertility is something we should fight. Instead we should look into how to adapt to the new reality.
@@delusion2987
"or.. just artificial wombs. randomly picked, healthy sperm and egg donors, the child grows up alongside other children with no actual parents in a state caretaker facility"
Do you trust your government to such extent? What you propose basically means more power to the government.
"unlike for example in old times in a multi generational farmhouse where they provide value basically from the get go. "
You really think that peasants in the past were planning like that? I highly doubt so.
You are overdramatizing.
The German word ''''gesund schrumpfen'''' may Lead us To a healthy size of four billion people . to me that is a positive outlook .
What is a healthy size? The earth can support way more than even our current population, so why is an arbiritary lower number 'healthy'
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the globe presently is at least in the rich countries : flabby + obese
@@matthiuskoenig3378 exactly
I kind of empathise with women on this one. They’re just experiencing the first phases of enlightenment. Many of them have started to ask themselves the most basic existential questions: “what am I?” “Why am I this?” “Why am I here?”.
Just imagine you suddenly realise that you don’t actually have to submit your body to the unbearable pains of pregnancy and the scares it leaves on your beloved body. Of course many of them are going to think about it twice before getting pregnant for the sake of the species. Many of them will take the “let others do it” stance. Who can blame them?
Of course I also don’t condone hate towards modern men, but how to stop them from being free? Converting everybody to Islam?
You tax the non-child-raising people a percentage of their income and take this money and distribute it among the child-raising people. People raising two kids get double the share of the money, three kids, triple. And so forth and so on.
It automatically balances out because when more people have children, the share per child decreases and makes children less desirable. The tax rate can be adjusted to balance out at a particular desired birth rate.
Granted, it heavily involves transferring money from wealthy majorities to poor minorities, so I don't imagine that any society on Earth would actually implement it or anything similar. They would choose self-immolation first.
@@Veylon Well, part of our taxes is already destined to single mothers, so there’s that. The adjustments you’re proposing just take that closer to communism, so many would freak out even though it might make sense.
@@davidcervantes9336 Bachelor taxes existed way before Communism. They were used in the pre-independence American colonies, for instance.
But I get what you mean. Any pro-Natalist policy will be pilloried as Communistic because it would involve favoring an aspect of society outside of raw, immediate productivity.
@@Veylon I'm perfectly aware all sorts of taxes have always existed, but we have to focus on the current mindset of society. Anything that ''threatens'' freedom, even if it's for our very own survival, would be catalogued as ''bad'' because ''communism bad''.
i think the ideology surrounding what love is is extremely flawed today and it could be really helpful if people weren’t so afraid of the consequences of love and relationships. it also isn’t religion and is undeniable. it also encourages collectivism with meaning and care behind it more so like a rural community when done with love. nobody teaches love and not many try to think about it deeply and critically or implement it in their life in a really helpful way. it’s urban and results in more babies. also in the thinking of if people had more love for themselves and all things, which is of course actively fought against by governments.
Most women mistake sexual arousal for love.
@@cybernd78 yes because they are teaching them that way
From an urban planning perspective, I believe that Jane Jacobs described cities best by posing them as places of various levels of complexity, and that cities function as organisms. In this context American suburbia is the equivalent of dissecting each component of said organism and pretending that each component can independently function as a whole, which evidently it cannot. Cities have historically typically had below replacement level of fertility with them only growing due to the constant inflow of rural migrants. However accounting for the high mortality rate I would assume that cities in the past would still have a higher fertility than modern day cities such as Tokyo or NYC. The way to square the circle is create spaces that promote family well being as well as focusing on how these places can function as an actual city not just as disparate nodes of development. I think that the only places that could be said to be built in this way would be the archetypical "Old Town/Mainstreet USA" places, such as the Orange Circle in SoCal. Having places be walkable and built for a human scale as well as understanding that places need to be of multiple uses to promote vibrancy and keep a city alive, does not necessarily mean that all places have to look like Shanghai or Mumbai to be considered well designed.
Your perspective is feeling quite balanced these days and that truly is excellent. I appreciate the realistic approach. Those of the left and the right must come together on this issue. Human rights will not be scarified and neither will quality of life. This issue is bigger than politics.
One other reason is that having children can be awfully difficult. I have 3 and if i hadnt had a huge extended family around, private health care and a lot of money i would have gone mental. They dont aleep for 4 years, they cost a lot, you dont get a break, you go through severe mental and physical trauma having them and its impossible to manage this as a family of 2 adults. My husband and i both came from generational wealth so we can afford the pressures of child rearing. But most cant, if i was working a low or even mid paying job with no family around I'd only have 1 maybe 2. I've seen people completing breakdown over not having a child that sleeps and having to manage a job at the same time, of course they wouldn't have another! I wouldnt have if i didnt have night nannies. I think there likely has been a significant increase in "one and done" families
That's why the only, unfortunate option is patriarchy. One works and makes money, the other takes care of children. I don't see any other alternative (except being rich and having nannies). I worked as a cleaner (UK) and I had some contracts for the rich and privileged family in upper class. Massive estate, horses etc. Two cooks, people who took care of stables. The lady had 5 children, a man worked as a CEO. The minute she had her last baby it was taken by the nanny. It was the nannies who took care of children. That woman was mostly painting. She also slept a lot. I think her father eventually get her some high paying job, but she left it.
" i hadnt had a huge extended family around"
That's another very important factor. Everything becomes easier when you have "tribe" around you.
@@sebsebski2829 most men do not want this. Most men want to raise their children. They do not want to be working 2 jobs and never see them. One raising the kids and one being out of the home all the time working does work for anyone's wellbeing. It is also very bad for the children to not see their fathers. I've seen it myself, overworking men do not make happy healthy children. In this sense, your definition of patriarchy is bad for men and children. Think a bit more.
@@mateuszmisztela601 most certainly! My first just didn't sleep and I was up breastfeeding all night, without my mother around to take the baby in the morning so I could sleep I would never have had another!
@@sebsebski2829 honestly you need to get into reality. Your definition of patriarchy makes for a miserable home life, especially for men and children. Men do not want this. Most men want to raise their children. They don't want to be out of the home all day working multiple jobs to support many mouths. Children need present fathers in their lives. I know men who work very hard to do this and they are depressed, they miss their children growing up. Men don't have children because they want to work harder for some vague nationalistic cause, they have children because they want to HAVE children. Men need to be recognised more as beings who have family rights and love towards their children as much was women do. This is bad for men and children.
If you can't afford a home you can't afford a family
Not just any home
You need a home that's on par with consooomer standards
Otherwise you may only hope for a gy psie wife
The vast majority of Europeans and Americans can afford to either own or rent homes. Moreover the vast majority of subsaharans are poorer than their European and American counterparts and yet in every one of those countries with the exception Botswana and South Africa the fertility rate is above 3 children per woman.
@@algernonsidney8746 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck so they certainly CANNOT afford to either own or rent homes, hence why 50% of adults are living back home with their parents. The cost of living in Africa and other third world places is significantly cheaper than the West and the quality of life in those regions is also significantly worse. People can tolerate to live in such terrible living conditions there due to illiteracy and ignorance. You can't expect the average Western person to be ok living in mud huts, having no access to education, healthcare, reliable electricity, or even decent food.
The problem with North American Suburbia is not the spacious houses, it is that they rely too much on cars because there is lack of anything that is not residential in these neighbourhoods so they must get out of their regions and drive half an hour or more to buy anything. If there were stores in those neighbourhoods the residents would be walking the same thirty minutes or driving five.
The reason why things are cheaper in other places is due to lower transportation costs as well as other economic factors such as security and crime rates (places that have higher crime leads to more goods being lost to theft which leads to increasing prices to compensate). The cost of transporting stuff will always be baked in somewhere, it’s only a matter of whether you’re paying for it literally with the price or paying for it by owning and maintaining a car. Personally I prefer the latter, since a car is useful for many, many things.
Yes we made it illegal to build shops next to where people live. Ridiculous.
There's a Giant slightly less than a mile away. I walk there nearly every day for small this and thats. And just about the only other walkers I see in my neighborhood are out with their dogs!
@@gameragodzilla lol poor kid got caught up in the marketing
@@Blox117 It’s not marketing to acknowledge that things need to be moved around.
15 minute walkable cities require so much infrastructure that any small disruption will eventually result in it decaying, like dominos.
I don’t gain anything in any timeframe by solving this issue. Use your mind, I believe in you.
Your analyses are as fascinating to watch as always! Great work!
Literacy doesn't have anything with the fertility rate, not directly. The reason why Africa, Central Asia AND Israel have high fertility is about power. People make kids to wield more power among the environment / society they live in, whether it is labor intensive farmlands or an extended family apartment with lots of children of siblings or a neighborhood full of other big families.
makes sense
Solution I propose is to heqvily favor families with absurd amount of children to allow them to bevome rivals to other families in the society. Tools could be very cheap luxury services, cheap cheap automobile, cheap rent, popular media propaganda campaigns, importing big families. It doesn't necessarily need to make life easier for big families, it needs to make it more like a luxury that everyone wants to have, like a fridge or car.
And they seek that power in virtue of the nature of their work. Higher literacy rates, synonymous with proliferation of women's education, reduce engagement with that type of work and so birth rates as a result.
American here. Our suburbs are not that bad. And no one, aside from rural folks, drive 30 minutes for groceries. You have a yard, spacious interior, less noise, no upstairs neighbors stomping around, room for a vehicle or three, and room for lots of kids. Yeah, Starbucks probably isnt around the corner, but if you move into the right house, you might be within view of it or a 5 minute drive. Same for all your other needs. I lived in a neighborhood with cozy houses and spacious yards. But I was sorta within view of a police and fire station, Auto Zone, gas station, and other small business. Within a mile, outside of view from my house, we had a Sonic, Domino's Pizza, Taco Bell, Mexican restaurant, pawn shop, antique store, grocery store, churches, you name it. Heck, you could reasonably bike or walk if you had to. Suburbs do work. But like with anything, you can't have morons designing them.
Urbanists are the ideological justification for modern day land clearances.
You white collar or blue collar?
@@traumvonhaiti Whatever is slightly below blue collar 😅 I'm still living with my parents and in college.
Maybe the Amish or Haredi could move to rural, depopulated, Eastern Europe and farm.
Repatriation program perchance ⁉️
There's still some Hutterites there, not many, but some are in Siberia.
Why would you want the haredi to return to Europe? What good what that do for Europeans?
haha, for not long will they stay there under this govt..
I got a vasectomy after my second child. The reason being, diminishing returns. I knew that I only wanted two children, and that I would only be able to provide the BEST life for 2. If I was 20 years younger, I doubt I'd consider children in 2024. We are living in a world where having children doesn't make sense, and is even a detriment in some cases. I've advised my sons against having children of their own. I'm content with my lineage ending with them.
Macroenvironmental analysis tells us that having kids is a risky and costly strategy. Climate & ecosystem, Authoritarianism, AI, Homelessness. All the energy is going into luxury gated living for the 1% quite like the 2010 movie Elysium. Living without kids gives more opportunity and flexibility now.
I won't be risking my life through a pregnancy and childbirth, plus the emotional and economical burden it takes to raise a healthy child since birth. I want to enjoy my life and travel.
We are not in the medieval ages, childibrth is save today
it used to be normal for women in some parts of the world to have 10+ children. It isnt as bad as you think, it isnt as hard as you think, objectively. People with children are on average happier and more satisfied than people without. you wont be able to travel and enjoy the world when your 80, you need children, society needs a future, you need to plan for your future
@@francislongshore9121 "People are happier with children", no honey. Statistics say exactly the opposite... And I don't blame them. Times have changed, people want to live and enjoy life, this is what life is about.
KaiserBauch v Urban planning RUclips is the new Kendrick v Drake
Kaiserbauch is definitely Drake because he's not fond of facts and deals with a whole lot of cope.
The explanation and solution has to be about incentives lets see how many get mentioned.
Literacy is not an incentive.
Religion is not an incentive unless it demands fertility which none of the mainstream Religions do.
Urbanization is not an incentive.
The role of men and women could be an incentive.
*sigh* Seriously you have to look at the reasons to what motivates people and not try to explain a Phenomena with correlations you think are relevant. All of this boils down to the Hierarchy of needs. In ye old days why was it good and desired to have many children, regardless of levels of Literacy or any of the other thing you like to talk about.
If having children does not fulfill a basic need like one you need to fulfill to survive yourself, why the heck would you have children. In poor uneducated Countries you wont have Institutions that ensure your survival regardless of how many children you have. You need them to ensure you wont die when you can no longer work.
Really good vid