Keith and Ryan return to discuss modern civilization's biggest crisis: the fertility collapse. Entire nations face erasure within generations on current trends. Why is this problem so persistent, what are the factors driving it, and what can be done...
You should've went into what Kaiserbauch talks about which is the idea of a demographic transition that occurs in all countries after industrialisation where the child mortality rapidly decreases so population explodes but then the birthrates adjusts over 2 generations so you get to below replacement fertility. This phenomena is global this is why we see it in places like Europe, Iran and South Korea and it also tends to explain why even poor "traditional" states experience it. Then the difference between 0.8 and 1.9 fertility can be explained by cultural and economic factors like feminism and housing.
Ma'am, Keet is lookin' ZESTY, he is lookin' MOIST, he's got sugar in his tank, he's light on his feet, he's a Ill bit fruity, he plays for the other team, he dances at the other end of the ballroom, he is theatrical, he is good with colors, he is gonna coordinate yo curtains wit you cushions and that shit gonna look good! He lifts shirts, he is on the down low, he be a tollet trader, he gardens uphill, he packs fudge, he's a friend of Dorothy, he feels the love that dare not speak Its name, he loves to dance, he's of the Uranian brotherhood, he indulges in the French vice, he has an antipathic sexual Instinct, he's fluent in Polari, he's a refugee from Sodom, he's on the wrong bus, he bats for the other team, he's temperamental, he's 'one of if you catch my drift.
Great conversation, although I’m a bit surprised that you hardly touched on contraception (I don’t think it was even mentioned, though I might have missed it). Surely that must be the most important factor? Contraception led to (apparently) consequence-free sex, and this is what made loose sexual morals possible in the first place.
It’s not at all clear that widespread contraception and stable fertility rates can coexist, since we don’t have a single example of a society in which they do. Human sexuality has developed in a world where sex leads to pregnancy, and this world no longer exists. Women now make a clear distinction between sex for the sake of pleasure and sex with the purpose (or at least the risk) of pregnancy. This is deeply unnatural; in the past no such distinction existed. Our biological imperatives are fundamentally misaligned with our environment, so we should not be all that surprised to see catastrophic consequences.
The fertility problem may simply be unsolvable without some economic/technological collapse that ends the production of contraceptives.
My daughter and husband have 8 children. Until last year they lived in a 3 BR house. Was it easy, no! Did they make it work, yes! I have 8 lovely, independent, classically educated (home schooled) grandchildren who are a true pleasure. It can be done if you have the right mindset.
I think it's more to do with money. Your comment actually proves it because people want more kids and just can't afford it, so the theory that people don't want kids is wrong - it's because they can't afford it.
I think I would like eight grandkids as well, because you get all the benefits of little kids without all the downsides, because you can just drop them off once they become little brats!
How do you explain the surveys then? Desired fertility across OECD countries consistently comes in around 2.3 children per woman. Realised fertility is 1.5. That gap of nearly a child per woman isn't people not wanting kids - it's people who want kids not having them.
More directly: when you ask couples with one or two children why they didn't have a third, the most common answer across every survey is cost - housing specifically. Not diapers. Not lifestyle. Cost.
Your theory predicts desired fertility should have collapsed. It hasn't. Mine predicts realised fertility collapses while desired stays higher. That's exactly what the data shows.
I explain them as follows: people (women especially) think they want something, but when theory meets practice, those illusions collapse.
Not unlike the numerous people that say that they ''wish they could live in the countryside'' but never make the move, or try and realize they idealized the idea.
Ask people with one kid why they didn't have a second. If they are honest, they will admit that it's due to all the inconveniences and loss of comfort that children bring to life.
The countryside analogy breaks down immediately. People who move to the countryside and hate it - that's a revealed preference that updates their stated preference. Fair enough.
But 91% of British parents report no regrets about having children. If the reality was worse than the illusion, regret should be high. It isn't.
More directly: your theory predicts the gap between desired and realised fertility should close over time as people 'discover' they didn't really want kids. It hasn't closed. It's widened. Desired fertility has stayed sticky at around 2.3 for decades while realised fertility has fallen to 1.5.
Very interesting discussion. A couple of things. Why this intense dislike of Nigel Farage? I can understand why he must seem quite passé and middle-of-the-road to two blokes who have thought long and hard about our problems and see possible solutions in the reanimation of Freudian analysis and super-creches for loose women, but surely you like him more than Keir Starmer and Zac Polanski? Maybe even a bit more than Kemi? If we assume that Restore isn't going to achieve much, no matter how much we might want them to, maybe Nigel and Reform are our best chance of improving things, just as Trump was in America. Your dislike of Farage smacks of the narcissism of large, though in the political context relatively small, differences.
And as you are both super-articulate, well-read and intelligent, could you sometimes use 'fewer' instead of 'less' for countable nouns, and perhaps 'a vast number of people' rather than 'a vast amount of people', which makes humans sound like an amorphous heap of gunk.
You should've went into what Kaiserbauch talks about which is the idea of a demographic transition that occurs in all countries after industrialisation where the child mortality rapidly decreases so population explodes but then the birthrates adjusts over 2 generations so you get to below replacement fertility. This phenomena is global this is why we see it in places like Europe, Iran and South Korea and it also tends to explain why even poor "traditional" states experience it. Then the difference between 0.8 and 1.9 fertility can be explained by cultural and economic factors like feminism and housing.
Hitler gave young couples several thousand marks to get married and have children.
But that would not completely solve the problem today. The Indo-Afro-Mudlem invaders are breeding factories working double shifts.
They must all be expelled from the west.
Lead by example. Get married. Have children.
Ma'am, Keet is lookin' ZESTY, he is lookin' MOIST, he's got sugar in his tank, he's light on his feet, he's a Ill bit fruity, he plays for the other team, he dances at the other end of the ballroom, he is theatrical, he is good with colors, he is gonna coordinate yo curtains wit you cushions and that shit gonna look good! He lifts shirts, he is on the down low, he be a tollet trader, he gardens uphill, he packs fudge, he's a friend of Dorothy, he feels the love that dare not speak Its name, he loves to dance, he's of the Uranian brotherhood, he indulges in the French vice, he has an antipathic sexual Instinct, he's fluent in Polari, he's a refugee from Sodom, he's on the wrong bus, he bats for the other team, he's temperamental, he's 'one of if you catch my drift.
You think so?
I am dense. Who is Keet?
Affectionate name for Keith: the above is in jest
I like your euphemisms. Especially “he dances at the other end of the ballroom.”
I can take no credit
They did seem familiar ( but not in a family way).
Lovely episode. I'm glad you highlighted the psychological factors that get completely sidelined by the mainstream demographers
I suspect that all the dating-app based statistics might be subject to some heavy selection bias.
Great conversation, although I’m a bit surprised that you hardly touched on contraception (I don’t think it was even mentioned, though I might have missed it). Surely that must be the most important factor? Contraception led to (apparently) consequence-free sex, and this is what made loose sexual morals possible in the first place.
It’s not at all clear that widespread contraception and stable fertility rates can coexist, since we don’t have a single example of a society in which they do. Human sexuality has developed in a world where sex leads to pregnancy, and this world no longer exists. Women now make a clear distinction between sex for the sake of pleasure and sex with the purpose (or at least the risk) of pregnancy. This is deeply unnatural; in the past no such distinction existed. Our biological imperatives are fundamentally misaligned with our environment, so we should not be all that surprised to see catastrophic consequences.
The fertility problem may simply be unsolvable without some economic/technological collapse that ends the production of contraceptives.
Thanks, I actually have my own theory on this.
https://discontinuitythesis.substack.com/p/the-sterile-machine-how-rent-extraction
Basically, it's just that the system extracts too much money out of people so they can't afford to have kids, rather than it being a lifestyle choice.
All the subsidies, like child care, just get extracted out by people raising their prices. So that's why all the policy levers have failed.
I actually have 18 grandkids because I had 4 children.
My daughter and husband have 8 children. Until last year they lived in a 3 BR house. Was it easy, no! Did they make it work, yes! I have 8 lovely, independent, classically educated (home schooled) grandchildren who are a true pleasure. It can be done if you have the right mindset.
I think it's more to do with money. Your comment actually proves it because people want more kids and just can't afford it, so the theory that people don't want kids is wrong - it's because they can't afford it.
I think I would like eight grandkids as well, because you get all the benefits of little kids without all the downsides, because you can just drop them off once they become little brats!
No, it's not. People can afford children, children costs money yes but most people have the means for them.
The reason people don't have kids is because they don't want to wake up at 4 am to change diapers full of shit.
How do you explain the surveys then? Desired fertility across OECD countries consistently comes in around 2.3 children per woman. Realised fertility is 1.5. That gap of nearly a child per woman isn't people not wanting kids - it's people who want kids not having them.
More directly: when you ask couples with one or two children why they didn't have a third, the most common answer across every survey is cost - housing specifically. Not diapers. Not lifestyle. Cost.
Your theory predicts desired fertility should have collapsed. It hasn't. Mine predicts realised fertility collapses while desired stays higher. That's exactly what the data shows.
I explain them as follows: people (women especially) think they want something, but when theory meets practice, those illusions collapse.
Not unlike the numerous people that say that they ''wish they could live in the countryside'' but never make the move, or try and realize they idealized the idea.
Ask people with one kid why they didn't have a second. If they are honest, they will admit that it's due to all the inconveniences and loss of comfort that children bring to life.
The countryside analogy breaks down immediately. People who move to the countryside and hate it - that's a revealed preference that updates their stated preference. Fair enough.
But 91% of British parents report no regrets about having children. If the reality was worse than the illusion, regret should be high. It isn't.
More directly: your theory predicts the gap between desired and realised fertility should close over time as people 'discover' they didn't really want kids. It hasn't closed. It's widened. Desired fertility has stayed sticky at around 2.3 for decades while realised fertility has fallen to 1.5.
Just check out Yougov. https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/51749-why-do-some-britons-not-want-children
how many children do the 2 of you have?
Very interesting discussion. A couple of things. Why this intense dislike of Nigel Farage? I can understand why he must seem quite passé and middle-of-the-road to two blokes who have thought long and hard about our problems and see possible solutions in the reanimation of Freudian analysis and super-creches for loose women, but surely you like him more than Keir Starmer and Zac Polanski? Maybe even a bit more than Kemi? If we assume that Restore isn't going to achieve much, no matter how much we might want them to, maybe Nigel and Reform are our best chance of improving things, just as Trump was in America. Your dislike of Farage smacks of the narcissism of large, though in the political context relatively small, differences.
And as you are both super-articulate, well-read and intelligent, could you sometimes use 'fewer' instead of 'less' for countable nouns, and perhaps 'a vast number of people' rather than 'a vast amount of people', which makes humans sound like an amorphous heap of gunk.