Women decide how many kids they plan to have by adolescence. They choose between three distinct life paths: a semi-domesticated life with 1-4 kids, a professional life with maybe 1 child in their late 30s, or the fully domesticated route with 4+ and no career. No mere subsidy could induce a woman to switch from one path to another. In China, home prices have fallen 20% over the past five years. In some smaller cities they've fallen 50%! Buying a home to start a family would now cost on average $40k-100k less than it would have 5 years ago. And what have women done with this de facto 5-6 figure subsidy? They've cratered the birthrate below 1.0. Because no subsidy could induce them to restart their whole life and kill their career to nurse some screaming shitting babies, or for the women who have started families, to take their nice manageable 2 child household and add two more babies, doubling their workload and expense.
>>18614098Just ban birth control if you care about the birth rates so much. Or you can establish factory nurseries in what is unironically the organic continuation of recent trends in human life. Assuming no major upsets.
>>18614111Of course this won't happen and we either get swallowed by AI or we all die.
World population will stabilize at 10B people in the late 21st century but the fertility crisis will flip: Countries with presently abysmal TFR will flip their rate around vis-a-vis those countries with fertility above replacement.
>>18614111>birth controlImagine you're a historian and the study of history gets banned. You're going to get really really mad, probably try to kill whoever did that, and then you'll probably just switch to studying classics or archaeology. You will NOT become a rock climber or a yoga instructor. That's roughly parallel to what would happen if birth control was banned. Women would not have more babies, they would just get really really mad, and then they'd only let the man cum inside them when they're not ovulating. They would be minorly inconvenienced. >factory nurseriesThis is just like saying if you want more babies why not make babies.
>>18614126Why
>>18614138Well, there is strong drive for sex. Sex is likely to produce children, in the absence of birth control.
>>18614138Birthcontrol and the study of history are not comparable. Birth-control is more like car insurance; you ban it and people are going to be pissed, but they are still going to drive, and they are still going to crash. Romania did this with exactly these results.>This is just like saying if you want more babies why not make babies.Pay poors to get in-vitro fertilized children implanted within them and carry them to term then pay people the market rate to raise them. Not hard.
>>18614098Are you saying it's impossible to raise the TFR or are you suggesting something else? I don't know if I understand.
>>18614252Fuck you're right I forgot about Romania. I may have to rethink that. I can still always cope and goal post shift and say that the utter freaks who would start having kids because they cannot resist cumming inside for even 5 days a month or who would sign up for the baby factory would produce the most dysgenic spawn you could ever imagine.
>>18614258I'm saying giving people a cheap house or paying them money wouldn't work because the problem is already that women just don't materially need men: women pick and choose their number of children the way they choose a major in college.Giving them more money would just give them more freedom. But taking away women's freedom is also just suicidal, all that does is get women really really angry at you.As the fine anon >>18614252 pointed out, state mandated baby making in Romania worked to boost TFR but it created a populace that hated the shit out of the government. The only solace we can take is that maybe people are just getting weeded out and eventually those who can reproduce will repopulate the country. But that sounds like such utter cope: the modern world is hellish and totally frigid on romance, if our great-grandparents were teleported to this dating environment they wouldn't believe how awful it is. And we're supposed to assume this environment is some how eugenic and is filtering out only bad people? Like wow we created Hell on Earth and it happened to be the filter for a good society?
>>18614264The children don't necessarily have to be related to the woman carrying them. The idea would be that the government more or less gets to decide what sperm and what eggs get fertilized. So it's yew-genics o algo.
>>18614276Raising the children without parents would still be dysgenic, and there's no way to filter sperm or eggs for eugenic qualities. You can abort a Down syndrome baby but you can't identify the IQ or height of sperm or eggs. Trust me, if you could, the birthrate would be like 0.3
>>18614098>They choose between three distinct life paths: a semi-domesticated life with 1-4 kids, a professional life with maybe 1 child in their late 30s, or the fully domesticated route with 4+ and no career. And if you give them subsidies, more of them will choose to stay at home. Thing is, less females in labour force does not mean more babies.
>>18614273>But taking away women's freedom is also just suicidal, all that does is get women really really angry at you.Women won't do shit, it's the simps and cucks that will cause problems, which are too many today
>>18614098I don’t consider this to be a problem. Within each population is a subset with higher than average birthrates. As time passes they, by virtue of having more kids, will become a larger share of the population, and the overall TFR will go up. I expect religious groups like Amish, Mormons, Orthodox Jews and Muslims to carry on like this.
>>18614098Your theory is wrong because Manchurians are basically feral and aren't reproducing
>>18614098>Women decideThere is your problem right .
>>18614139It came to him in a dream.
>>18614138Kek, nope. They'll get mad, sure, but then they'll do nothing. This is women we're talking about.
>>18614098>Women decide how many kids they plan to have by adolescencegonna need some proof of this
>>18614098There are far too many people on the planet, more retards having children isn't needed. If another jeet or african was never born it would be largely a good thing. Also we can just easily have artificial wombs and remove female approval for reproduction as a constraint (which is dysgenic anyway).
>>18614098You can't just blame women for it, the vast majority of men also don't want kids
>>18614126>>18614139>>18614854It's based on population models which have so far accurately predicted real world trends. Nations which improve sexual education, access to contraceptives, and civil liberties for women have all seen a similar drop - if you correct for immigration. Even the big three (China, India, Pakistan) are beginning to waver, and Africa is looking to carry the rest of the growth this century. If these trends hold, the prediction is a peak of 10B by 2050, and a decling starting in 2100.
