Right, because that’s a “smart” way to tackle the demographic collapse/crisis while totally not making the problem worse.

▲

triceratops a day ago | parent | next [-]

Why do we need to "tackle" the demographic collapse? The CEO of Ford just said he expects 50% of white-collar jobs to be eliminated soon. Tax the AI and you'll have plenty of money for retirees. There's nothing wrong with naturally, and gradually, going back to the population levels of 1980 or whatever.

	▲	cwmoore 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

lotsofpulp a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t see a way to avoid population decline, assuming women have freedom and access to 100% effective birth control.

The whole process of pregnancy/birth//breastfeeding/infant rearing sucks, so that most women will opt for 1 or 2, max.

Then you have to account for all the men and women who opt to stay single (or queer or whatever). The number of women that need to have more than 2 kids to offset those with 0 and 1 will never happen.

The only possible mechanism to align incentives is to remove all old age benefits and wealth transfers, so that one likely has to depend on their children. But even then, I doubt it would work.

▲

epgui a day ago | parent [-]

Immigration.

▲

pstuart 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, that's part of it but helping to ease the economic burden of child rearing would definitely help.

The documentary Idiocracy has some interesting insights into the issue -- it's worth the watch.

▲

epgui 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course. My response was overly simplistic, simply because the parent comment seemed to suggest that there existed no solution.

	▲	lotsofpulp 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What do you mean? I see no success so far across the world, and simply paying people to have kids is the wrong incentive (since badly raised children are worse than no children).