> The reason we have declining birth rates is phones

US Live births per 1000 people from Macrotrends:

* 1960 - 22.70

* 1970 - 16.83

* 1980 - 14.99

* 1990 - 15.57

* 2000 - 14.18

* 2010 - 13.31

* 2020 - 11.99

* 2026 - 11.98

In the 30 years 1960 - 1990 which predate widespread adoption of mobile phones, we see a drop of ~7 live births per 1000 people.

In the 35 years since then (during which mobile phones have become ubiquitous) it has dropped by a further 3.5 live births per 1000 which is half the prior reduction.

If we look at US fertility rates the situation is even more dramatic. Births per woman:

* 1960 - 3.44

* 1970 - 2.34

* 1980 - 1.79

* 1990 - 1.96

* 2000 - 2.01

* 2010 - 1.98

* 2020 - 1.78

* 2026 - 1.79

The 30 years from 1960-1990 see a drop of almost 1.5 vs. a drop of about 0.2 in the 35 years since.

All of which is to say that the trend for declining birth rates predates mobile phone adoption, the biggest declines came prior to mobile phones being in widespread use. I've not researched the matter but my understanding is the primary drives in declining birth-rates are A) widespread availability of reliable birth control (the pill) and B)population wealth increases which tend to correlate quite strongly with the number of children a person has.

I don't discount phones having at least some impact, but seems highly unlikely that it's 'the' reason.

live births - https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... fertility rate - https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...

It's still dopamine. Dopamine + freedom.

It starts with access to tv, movies, leisure travel, and disposable income.

These things take you out of the evolutionary algorithm. Boredom, uncertainty, low dopamine, mind not preoccupied = having children.

We identified this trend already in DINKs, it just turns out biology's adversarial algorithm is far more widespread than just that one demographic pattern.

Smartphones are an accelerant.