There are plenty of religious groups that multiply like there is no tomorrow. They will take over in about 200 years and overpopulate the earth. There will be interesting religious discussion and we should start university courses about this already. Amish vs. LDS for starters.
And don't forget Africa. They will not stop reproducing either.
Climate related deaths have been declining for decades, while agricultural productivity is skyrocketing with the increased CO2 and longer planting seasons.
How do people who engage in that line of thinking explain the 300 year long correlation between rapidly rising population and rapidly increasing prosperity?
Keep in mind that respectable opinion has been fear mongering about running out of resources the entire time.
Malthusianism is the theory that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population decline. This event, called a Malthusian catastrophe
contrary to this theory food supply grew much higher than population growth with the advancing technologies.
TLDR: Fertility rate dropping is bad. We should have good children and families because its most likely your calling and will help improve your society.
People in this thread have already mentioned the materialistic and economic downsides to fertility dropping. Less people means less workers, less geniuses, less people to help solve problems.
There's more to this than the mere material reality. I believe we have a moral obligation to contribute to our family and to our civilization. Having and raising good children is a large part of how we do that. Why? Its good for you spiritually. If it wasn't for the contributions of ancestors and to past and present individuals in your society, you wouldn't exist. Much less have the quality of life you have today. Being a societal leech is bad for you.
"The world/my life sucks! Why would I bring someone into the world if they're just going to suffer?"
Suffering isn't inherently evil. It can help build character and strengthen you. Some of the happiest, most virtuous people on earth are living in poverty and struggling every day. For the people who aren't suffering nearly as badly: This doesn't mean you should ignore those who suffer or go out of your way to cause it. Suffering can build your character and spirit too by helping to alleviate it.
Building a family can help alleviate your mental and spiritual suffering. Many people struggle emotionally and psychologically because they aren't aligned with their purpose. Building a good, virtuous family is a part of the purpose of most people.
Having as many well raised, virtuous children as you can manage will improve the state of the world. They'll follow your example and have good children of their own. Having all these new, good people will influence and propel society into a good direction. They won't create a utopia, but they could at least end the clown world we're living in.
Now does this mean that everyone MUST have children or else? Absolutely not. Some people simply don't have the calling to become parents. However, the calling of these people is focusing their efforts on a purpose that will help their societies and themselves to flourish. They should also avoid vices that degenerate themselves and the societies around them. These people are in the minority (I would say like 20% or less of the population because Pareto principle). Most people should have kids.
Does this mean you should have 12 children? No, not necessarily. If you do and you're able to raise them all well, God richly bless you! People should stick to however many they can responsibly handle (within a marriage of course). I think most people can do 3. Most people should do at least 2 to replace themselves and their spouse.
It's neither good or bad. Remember when people predicted (was it Maltus?) that the globe will be over-populated pretty soon? Now we are predicting the opposite.. In the grand scheme of things, the universe will always find a balance.
Many families in the developing world are having fewer children because infant mortality is declining and it doesn't take as many pregnancies to reach their desired family size. That seems good.
In the developed world fertility rates are declining in part because women have more options for what to do with their lives, which also seems good, but they are also declining because the family is being severely devalued.
That last point is the really bad one. Having recently started a family (and being someone who might not have), I find it really tragic that people are missing out on this part of life who might have wanted it.
Global or rather certain countries? I guess china, japan and EU, but I am sure the global South its still on the rise, either that leads to migration to countries that need to the younger people by attracting them with incentives or we see that countries goverment get out of the people's way and the population goes to work building a new nation of wealth that can be shared with the rest of the world
The historic decline in fertility will touch nearly every area of state budgets in the coming years. Some fiscal effects have already emerged, while others will be relatively minor or won’t be felt for decades. The implications for individual states vary: Those with shrinking workforces that rely more than other states on taxes sensitive to population declines—such as income and sales taxes—are especially vulnerable to budget pressures. Other demographic shifts such as migration will also affect many sources of revenue and spending.
Today, most states find themselves in a relatively healthy fiscal position, with many enjoying robust budget surpluses.61 Fewer births in recent years have contributed appreciable cost savings. If low fertility persists, however, states will need to look more for other ways to grow their tax bases or they could face challenges over the long term.
Why are women having fewer children? There are a number of theories and empirical research studies to help explain this decrease, but according to Dr. Max Roser, the founder of Our World in Data, most of the literature boils down to three main factors:
Women’s empowerment, particularly in education and the workforce
Lower child mortality
Increased cost to raising children
Lancet Article on Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
Background
Understanding potential patterns in future population levels is crucial for anticipating and planning for changing age structures, resource and health-care needs, and environmental and economic landscapes. Future fertility patterns are a key input to estimation of future population size, but they are surrounded by substantial uncertainty and diverging methodologies of estimation and forecasting, leading to important differences in global population projections. Changing population size and age structure might have profound economic, social, and geopolitical impacts in many countries. In this study, we developed novel methods for forecasting mortality, fertility, migration, and population. We also assessed potential economic and geopolitical effects of future demographic shifts
Interpretation
Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth. A sustained TFR lower than the replacement level in many countries, including China and India, would have economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences. Policy options to adapt to continued low fertility, while sustaining and enhancing female reproductive health, will be crucial in the years to come.
The Long-Term Decline in Fertility—and What It Means for State Budgets
Conclusion
will touch nearly every area of state budgetsin the coming years. Somefiscal effects have already emerged, while others will be relatively minor or won’t be felt for decades. The implications for individual states vary: Those with shrinking workforces that rely more than other states on taxes sensitive to population declines—such as income and sales taxes—are especially vulnerable to budget pressures. Other demographic shifts such as migration will also affect many sources of revenue and spending.If low fertility persists, however, states will need to look more for other ways to grow their tax basesor they could face challenges over the long term.Charted: The Global Decline of Fertility Rates
Lancet Article on Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
Background
Interpretation