If the global baby boom lead to all the technological and lifestyle improvements of the twentieth century, I’m getting a little nervous for them twenty first…
That's a big if. The largest technological improvements (electrification, internal combustion, antibiotics, plumbing) mostly arrived before the post-1950 population explosion, and productivity growth slowed right as population growth peaked in the late 60s. What drove tech innovation was research and R&D spending, much of it funded by governments as part of war efforts.
funny enough before people used to make estimates of how earth won't have resources to carry a large population. hence some people would need to settle in space or that there needs to a massive drive in birth control, which led to Chinese 1 child policy which has had a devastating effect.
Mass forced sterilization, sex-selective abortion and infanticide, 13 million heihaizi (unregistered children = "illegals" in their homeland), ongoing repercussions in the skewed gender ratio and demographic cliff / "4-2-1" families...
And all for supposedly controlling a birth rate that had already fallen to 2.7 by the time it was implemented. And modern scholarship suggests the typical effects of economic development would have kept it running down steadily without all the costs incurred by an unevenly enforced law, given what happened everywhere else that had no birth-control policies.
The whole world seemed to buy into the narrative at the time, but history has shown it to be an example of misguided authoritarian foot-gun akin to the Four Pests campaign.
This isn't talked about enough, whenever people mention declining fertility rates it is all about the economy and boomers and climate change dread.
If our current situation was that bad than we would never have made it as a species. We have been cranking out babies through way bleaker times than this.
But we are, I think, far more thoroughly bombarded with news about how doomed everything is than in prior generations. 24 hour news is itself pretty new, and social media is more pervasive than it ever was.
Oh yeah, who wouldn't prefer to look at their phone instead of banging?
People have had the baby conversation. The stumbling block is money, not Reels or Tiktok. A 50% drop in fertility if true, is low compared to the percentage increase in the cost of childcare, nutrition and education. Especially in a country like Argentina where the locals do not see a future for themselves there even as the billionaires like Gates and Thiel buy up farmland and luxury real estate like no tomorrow - pun intended.
People are not optimistic about the future, and why should they be?
The previously "looming" climate crisis that we did little to nothing to slow down is here, now, and the real-world negative effects of it are getting worse faster than the predictions that a lot of people used to label as alarmist.
Economic inequality is teetering nearly all of the world's economies on the brink of runaway major crises.
I'm stuck here in this ridiculous society we're running off a cliff, but I don't have to doom anyone else to this fate by having kids.
This completely and entirely ignores what was actually happening in Argentina over the past 10 years, and I think the reason is the same as everywhere else: cost of living is too high. Argentina was in a state of hyperinflation in 2023.
It’s the inflation itself, not the cost of living. Inflation does weird things sociologically and psychologically, you’re messing with the fabric of human economic relations which is implicated in status hierarchies and assortative mating
Maybe inflation undercuts trust in the economic system in ways that haven’t been fully realized or appreciated. We’re afraid of deflation, but it seems there are big problems with inflation as well.
I think hyperinflation makes the system unpredictable and having a child inadvertently requires long-term planning, which becomes fuzzy in such an environment.
Having a child is such a large, substantial commitment which would probably be best made in a really predictable environment.
It is true that in the past, unpredictable environments didn't completely stop people from having children, but there are just so many factors (social media, contraception, job-related stress, social acceptance of not having children) and many more which create the combined net effect.
I wouldn't say that inflation plays the absolute key component, but certainly it's a discussion worth having.
Also, even if some objective measures of living standards are improving, we are constantly bombarded with information about wars, economic crises, political instability, climate change, etc., and it takes a toll psychologically, which perhaps comes into consideration when discussing having a child.
Constantly seeing evidence of this uncertainty could affect the perception of how predictable the future is, which might matter when making a 20+ year commitment like having children.
Anecdotally I know only one couple who avoided having a second child because of climate crisis. They are pretty well off tho, have multiple long distance vacations per year and drive ICE vehicle /shrug.
> Yesterday, I told you Mexico’s total fertility rate is at 1.2. Today, let me remind you that Argentina’s total fertility rate is at 1.05: screenshot from the Argentine statistical agency below. Yes, 1.05. Argentina, in 2014, was at 2.3: a drop of more than 50% in a decade.
> And before you tell me “it’s Milei’s/the Peronists’/Leo Messi’s fault,” remember the following: of the 236 countries and territories on the planet, 219 have a clear negative trend in fertility. Of the remaining 17, I’d say the trend is negative as well in probably 16, although statistical methods have a hard time picking it up for one reason or another. The remaining one? Israel.
> So, if you think fertility is going down in your country because of some country-specific reason X, well, you might want to think twice.
South Korea – A cautionary tale for the rest of humanity - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46230576 - December 2025 (177 comments) ("Childbearing decisions are memetically influenced. They are shaped by the decisions peers make and the examples they see around them in everyday life.")
> Childbearing decisions are memetically influenced. They are shaped by the decisions peers make and the examples they see around them in everyday life.
Surely this explanation is circular. People look around and see that their peers are having fewer kids. But why are their peers having fewer kids to begin with? There has to be a backstop somewhere otherwise you get infinite regress.
Because children are expensive, in time, fiat, and opportunity cost while the freedom of being childfree is free if you choose to have less or no children. Social media allows for the socialization of these ideas at speed versus historical transmission rate of culture and social norms. This is covered most robustly in my Birthgap video citation above, additional citation below (by the same author as the tweet that is this post).
> "As of 2026, humanity is likely below replacement fertility. That has never happened before, not in wars or pandemics. But the real surprise is that the fall has been concentrated in low- and middle-income countries and among poorer and less educated women. We fit a single-factor model to 236 countries since 1950: the common component peaked in 1978, and what drives fertility down today are country-specific trends, 219 of them negative and not one leveling off. None of the commonly cited mechanisms can account for this pattern, so we offer a conjecture: modernity itself, which makes a third child expensive and childlessness cheap. Children come in integers, so it takes very little to move a cohort’s fertility rate from 1.8 to 1.3. And nothing in an economy pushes fertility back to 2.1. We close with the main economic consequences, in particular slow growth."
> There has to be a backstop somewhere otherwise you get infinite regress.
In summary, the global population boom happened because women were not educated and empowered to assert their reproductive choices. They are now. We are currently performing neutral fertility rate discovery via who does and does not choose to have children when it is a choice, versus when it is not a choice or forgone conclusion. A byproduct of this was economic growth, which is coming to an end, and will not repeat in our lifetimes based on demographic trends and trajectories.
Even countries like India and China are dead now. Child births have dropped like a rock in every single country.
The boomers will continue to choke the young into extinction and young people will die alone because they don’t have sex or form relationships.
On the plus side, with everyone else going extinct, if I can have lots of children who also have lots of children, within a few hundred years my descendants will rule the barren wasteland. The time of the munchkins has come!
Yes. About 20 years ago, I was to a family reunion, with (almost) all of the descendants of my maternal grandmother's parents. We were over a hundred: mmm and mmf had 9 children, who all lived, all got married and all had at least two children, many had more. The next generation did well too.
Many years later I got into family history, and looked into what happened to mmm's sister, who emigrated to the US. Turns out she had six children, but only four lived up, no one had more than two children, and her last descendant died during covid. It's technically possible there are descendants of course, but then they're "off the books" and would have been unknown to that last guy who died.
mmm's three other siblings too have no descendants - one moved to US, fought in WW1 and died a bachelor at over 100, the two others died shortly after age 18, both in drowning accidents.
So, even back when fertility was much higher, just because you had children and grandchildren didn't mean you'd have descendants a few generations further down.
"Fertility rate" is a bit confusing because it implies some biological reason like microplastic in the balls or something. Like the inability to have kids rather the the choice to not break your body, or to spawn in more suffering into the world which this seems to be about.
It's just a term of art with a longstanding specific meaning, just like any other term of art. No one even passingly familiar with the topic would be confused by it here.
If the global baby boom lead to all the technological and lifestyle improvements of the twentieth century, I’m getting a little nervous for them twenty first…
That's a big if. The largest technological improvements (electrification, internal combustion, antibiotics, plumbing) mostly arrived before the post-1950 population explosion, and productivity growth slowed right as population growth peaked in the late 60s. What drove tech innovation was research and R&D spending, much of it funded by governments as part of war efforts.
Wait, now I'm nervous...
Aren't you confusing causes and consequences here?
Correlation and causation
children of men becoming prophetic day by day.
funny enough before people used to make estimates of how earth won't have resources to carry a large population. hence some people would need to settle in space or that there needs to a massive drive in birth control, which led to Chinese 1 child policy which has had a devastating effect.
It is only a “devastating effect” if your only measure of success is unsustainable capitalistic growth.
If you measure it in terms of sustainable human life on earth, it was rather effective
Mass forced sterilization, sex-selective abortion and infanticide, 13 million heihaizi (unregistered children = "illegals" in their homeland), ongoing repercussions in the skewed gender ratio and demographic cliff / "4-2-1" families...
And all for supposedly controlling a birth rate that had already fallen to 2.7 by the time it was implemented. And modern scholarship suggests the typical effects of economic development would have kept it running down steadily without all the costs incurred by an unevenly enforced law, given what happened everywhere else that had no birth-control policies.
The whole world seemed to buy into the narrative at the time, but history has shown it to be an example of misguided authoritarian foot-gun akin to the Four Pests campaign.
Not everything is capitalism.
Damn I need to watch that again. Was a great film.
>children of men becoming prophetic day by day
The movie even starts with news of the dead of the last human born... a 18 years-old argentinian
Everyone is staring at their screens and miss out talking to their partner about the future, a family and making love.
I'm looking at my screen making love to my partner with the express purpose of making a baby
- Sent from my Lovesense Gush 3
This isn't talked about enough, whenever people mention declining fertility rates it is all about the economy and boomers and climate change dread.
If our current situation was that bad than we would never have made it as a species. We have been cranking out babies through way bleaker times than this.
But we are, I think, far more thoroughly bombarded with news about how doomed everything is than in prior generations. 24 hour news is itself pretty new, and social media is more pervasive than it ever was.
A significant cause of lower birth rates in the US is a large reduction in teen pregnancy. That's a good thing.
Oh yeah, who wouldn't prefer to look at their phone instead of banging?
People have had the baby conversation. The stumbling block is money, not Reels or Tiktok. A 50% drop in fertility if true, is low compared to the percentage increase in the cost of childcare, nutrition and education. Especially in a country like Argentina where the locals do not see a future for themselves there even as the billionaires like Gates and Thiel buy up farmland and luxury real estate like no tomorrow - pun intended.
Fertility rate is dropping almost everywhere.
People are not optimistic about the future, and why should they be?
The previously "looming" climate crisis that we did little to nothing to slow down is here, now, and the real-world negative effects of it are getting worse faster than the predictions that a lot of people used to label as alarmist.
Economic inequality is teetering nearly all of the world's economies on the brink of runaway major crises.
I'm stuck here in this ridiculous society we're running off a cliff, but I don't have to doom anyone else to this fate by having kids.
This completely and entirely ignores what was actually happening in Argentina over the past 10 years, and I think the reason is the same as everywhere else: cost of living is too high. Argentina was in a state of hyperinflation in 2023.
It’s the inflation itself, not the cost of living. Inflation does weird things sociologically and psychologically, you’re messing with the fabric of human economic relations which is implicated in status hierarchies and assortative mating
Maybe inflation undercuts trust in the economic system in ways that haven’t been fully realized or appreciated. We’re afraid of deflation, but it seems there are big problems with inflation as well.
I think hyperinflation makes the system unpredictable and having a child inadvertently requires long-term planning, which becomes fuzzy in such an environment.
Having a child is such a large, substantial commitment which would probably be best made in a really predictable environment.
It is true that in the past, unpredictable environments didn't completely stop people from having children, but there are just so many factors (social media, contraception, job-related stress, social acceptance of not having children) and many more which create the combined net effect.
I wouldn't say that inflation plays the absolute key component, but certainly it's a discussion worth having.
Also, even if some objective measures of living standards are improving, we are constantly bombarded with information about wars, economic crises, political instability, climate change, etc., and it takes a toll psychologically, which perhaps comes into consideration when discussing having a child.
Constantly seeing evidence of this uncertainty could affect the perception of how predictable the future is, which might matter when making a 20+ year commitment like having children.
Climate crisis and economic crisis both prevent people from wanting kids.
There has been much higher fertility during much worse times. They don’t really have much explanatory power on their own.
The U.S. birthrate hit historic lows during the Great Depression. It also dropped with the 2008 Recession and has never went up since.
Like for example? With comparable ability to control pregnancy?
Historically people hold of kids during bad times - as much as they can
Anecdotally I know only one couple who avoided having a second child because of climate crisis. They are pretty well off tho, have multiple long distance vacations per year and drive ICE vehicle /shrug.
It's dropping almost everywhere because the world is slowing urbanizing and abandoning subsistence agriculture.
> Fertility rate is dropping almost everywhere.
that is not true - this is ignorant of facts
https://archive.today/IO7lA
> Yesterday, I told you Mexico’s total fertility rate is at 1.2. Today, let me remind you that Argentina’s total fertility rate is at 1.05: screenshot from the Argentine statistical agency below. Yes, 1.05. Argentina, in 2014, was at 2.3: a drop of more than 50% in a decade.
> And before you tell me “it’s Milei’s/the Peronists’/Leo Messi’s fault,” remember the following: of the 236 countries and territories on the planet, 219 have a clear negative trend in fertility. Of the remaining 17, I’d say the trend is negative as well in probably 16, although statistical methods have a hard time picking it up for one reason or another. The remaining one? Israel.
> So, if you think fertility is going down in your country because of some country-specific reason X, well, you might want to think twice.
https://ourworldindata.org/population-simulation-tool?demogr...
https://ourworldindata.org/which-countries-have-already-pass...
Peak population forecasted for 2050.
South Korea – A cautionary tale for the rest of humanity - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46230576 - December 2025 (177 comments) ("Childbearing decisions are memetically influenced. They are shaped by the decisions peers make and the examples they see around them in everyday life.")
Birthgap [video] - https://youtube.com/watch?v=m2GeVG0XYTc
> Childbearing decisions are memetically influenced. They are shaped by the decisions peers make and the examples they see around them in everyday life.
Surely this explanation is circular. People look around and see that their peers are having fewer kids. But why are their peers having fewer kids to begin with? There has to be a backstop somewhere otherwise you get infinite regress.
Because children are expensive, in time, fiat, and opportunity cost while the freedom of being childfree is free if you choose to have less or no children. Social media allows for the socialization of these ideas at speed versus historical transmission rate of culture and social norms. This is covered most robustly in my Birthgap video citation above, additional citation below (by the same author as the tweet that is this post).
Terra Incognita: The Economics of a Shrinking World [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49352811 - August 2026
> "As of 2026, humanity is likely below replacement fertility. That has never happened before, not in wars or pandemics. But the real surprise is that the fall has been concentrated in low- and middle-income countries and among poorer and less educated women. We fit a single-factor model to 236 countries since 1950: the common component peaked in 1978, and what drives fertility down today are country-specific trends, 219 of them negative and not one leveling off. None of the commonly cited mechanisms can account for this pattern, so we offer a conjecture: modernity itself, which makes a third child expensive and childlessness cheap. Children come in integers, so it takes very little to move a cohort’s fertility rate from 1.8 to 1.3. And nothing in an economy pushes fertility back to 2.1. We close with the main economic consequences, in particular slow growth."
> There has to be a backstop somewhere otherwise you get infinite regress.
In summary, the global population boom happened because women were not educated and empowered to assert their reproductive choices. They are now. We are currently performing neutral fertility rate discovery via who does and does not choose to have children when it is a choice, versus when it is not a choice or forgone conclusion. A byproduct of this was economic growth, which is coming to an end, and will not repeat in our lifetimes based on demographic trends and trajectories.
South Korea is more densely populated than India. Exponential growth comes to an end when there is no more room.
South Korea’s problem is sexism, not space. My citation above speaks to this in depth.
On the plus side, if it can change that fast, it can grow again too.
I've heard explanations for South Korea's low birth rate but they seemed country specific. What is it about Argentina?
Even countries like India and China are dead now. Child births have dropped like a rock in every single country.
The boomers will continue to choke the young into extinction and young people will die alone because they don’t have sex or form relationships.
On the plus side, with everyone else going extinct, if I can have lots of children who also have lots of children, within a few hundred years my descendants will rule the barren wasteland. The time of the munchkins has come!
Unless you’re Amish, Hutterite, or Old Order Mennonite, your descendants are unlikely to continue that tradition.
Yes. About 20 years ago, I was to a family reunion, with (almost) all of the descendants of my maternal grandmother's parents. We were over a hundred: mmm and mmf had 9 children, who all lived, all got married and all had at least two children, many had more. The next generation did well too.
Many years later I got into family history, and looked into what happened to mmm's sister, who emigrated to the US. Turns out she had six children, but only four lived up, no one had more than two children, and her last descendant died during covid. It's technically possible there are descendants of course, but then they're "off the books" and would have been unknown to that last guy who died.
mmm's three other siblings too have no descendants - one moved to US, fought in WW1 and died a bachelor at over 100, the two others died shortly after age 18, both in drowning accidents.
So, even back when fertility was much higher, just because you had children and grandchildren didn't mean you'd have descendants a few generations further down.
Look up the ARS/USD exchange rate: 8x drop since 2016. USD itself has lost 50% of its value since then.
Nah, we are use to this. [Glad inflation is lower now anyway.]
To be fair, you too would keep it in your pants if the chainsaw massacre guy was holding the fate of your nation in his hands.
More seriously, who can start a family when economy is this unstable?
sorry, current president only 3 years in power. what 10 years are you speaking about?
also, by many stats Argentina is more stable of what it was before. what stat you refer indicates less stability?
seems peronista detected here.
"Fertility rate" is a bit confusing because it implies some biological reason like microplastic in the balls or something. Like the inability to have kids rather the the choice to not break your body, or to spawn in more suffering into the world which this seems to be about.
> "Fertility rate" is a bit confusing
It's just a term of art with a longstanding specific meaning, just like any other term of art. No one even passingly familiar with the topic would be confused by it here.