As U.S. fertility rates collapse, finger-pointing and blame follow

I think there's a rather big difference between myths and things we don't know with absolute certainty. If you're open to the possibility that something is true, while knowing there isn't absolute certainty, calling it a myth seems misleading at best.

> If that was true, it would scoop your own semen out better than your competitors.

I haven't done a poll, but I suspect many males stop thrusting after orgasm. Assuming that is true then there isn't really any downside to scooping out your own old semen if you only do it in situations where you're just going to make a fresh deposit 30 seconds later.

> The shape has more to do with arousing females and making it easier for your sperm to reach the eggs than anything else.

I'd be interested in seeing the research supporting this idea. I'm not saying I think it's false, but I've heard the 'sperm-scooping' theory before, but never the 'arousing females' one.

> Monogamy or polygamy is a far better male competitive "design" than the shape of the human penis. The best way to ensure you impregnate a woman is through monogamy or polygamy rather than semen displacement.

By polygamy I think you specifically mean polygyny? Because polyandry sounds like the kind of situation where the sperm scooping would be pretty effective. And just because one mechanism to achieve something exists does not mean that other mechanisms are useful. The best way not to die of poison is simply not to consume poison, but I'm pretty happy the body is able to vomit if you (accidentally) consume poison anyway.

> The best time for a female to procreate is 19 to 26. It's their peak biological fertility years. When they're most fertile and when their children are least likely to suffer from defects. Starting from 30s, it gets harder for women to get pregnant, it's more dangerous for the mother and it's when poorer quality of offspring are born.

To quote your own article:

> Team member Dr David Dunson explained: 'Though we noted a decline in fertility in the late 20s, what we found was a decrease in the probability of becoming pregnant per menstrual cycle, not in the probability of eventually achieving a pregnancy.

So it sounds to me that although women in their late twenties are slightly less likely to get pregnant on any given menstrual cycle than women in their early twenties, the effect does not seem to significantly affect their odds of procreating.

> Starting from 30s, it gets harder for women to get pregnant, it's more dangerous for the mother and it's when poorer quality of offspring are born.

But since we're linking studies, I would like to refer to some research by the CDC [1] that shows that infant mortality is lowest for mothers between the ages of 30 and 34 (inclusive), and the infant mortality for mothers younger than 20 is the highest of all, significantly surpassing that of women over 40. Based on a report from Australia [2] which includes some information about the risk of mortality for the mother it also looks like having children before the age of 20 is inadvisable at best. Risk of death for the mother is lowest in the 20-24 range, but mysteriously the 25-29 range is at a higher risk of death than women in the 30-34 range.

Regardless, based on the data I don't think it's self-evident that the best time for women to procreate is between the ages of 19 and 26. I'll admit I haven't included numbers about birth defects. Another thing we haven't examined is the ability of the parents to raise and support their children. I suspect a 30 year old women may have the advantage over one 10 years her junior in that particular department. It is short-sighted to consider only biology when discussing the 'best' age to have children.

> A woman waiting til their 30s to have offspring is like an nba player waiting til they are 40 to join the NBA.

I don't think the numbers support that conclusion at all.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_17.pdf (table 1, page 14) [2]: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/a8ff4563-b8f6-43b4-826e-a86... (figure 3.1, page 22)

From an individuals point of view lower population means fix resources are spread less thinly. There is less competition for jobs so you can command a large share of the pie.

Someday, though...

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme in the sense that there was fraudulent intent. Nevertheless, a lack of political will to finance current benefits does burden future generations. "Adjusting benefits downwards" won't sit too well with people who worked 30 or 40 years and expect to enjoy a certain standard of living.

Why Was Social Security Designed Like A Ponzi Scheme? https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2015/08/13/why-was-...

Is Social Security a Ponzi scheme? "Social Security has a funding gap equal to 0.7 percent of GDP over the next 75 years. We could wipe that gap out by lifting the payroll tax cap (right now, payroll taxes only apply to the first $107,000 of income) or by adjusting benefits downwards." https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-soci...

This clearly isn't viable so instead we have kids that take care of us when we become old.

More output while at the same time reducing workers means more productivity is required and to increase the productivity per worker we need far more automation. Things like truck/taxi automation might cause a temporary mass unemployment problem for unskilled workers but at the same time also solve the worker shortage that will happen when the population starts aging massively.

Because for all the nostalgia, teenage girls who got pregnant and their children were heavily stigmatised and paid the price. People who married as teenagers divorced more often. When divorce was not available due to laws, the nad marriage remained bad including domestic violence and such.

It is not just that she won't get education even if she had brain for it. She will have hard time getting and keeping job. She will be completely dependent of help of other people and such situation royally sux. Which does not mean she won't be lonely, because when you depend on people they are less likely to treat you like an equality friend.

Lack of respect toward blue colar translates into much less respect for both pregnant teenager and homemaker. The reality is, the warm homemaker happily making cookies is largely rose colored fiction. It kind of ignores reality of it all, for both genders. Men prefered being with male friends over warm home anyway and women were butt of joke anyway.

Speaking about loneliness, being stay at home mom can be loneliest experience ever. Lonely guys who have jobs and online games are not nearly as lonely as homemaker situation.

Edited to add: you know the stereotype of women being on the phone so much and being extremely talkative? Both are because homemaker is completely alone whole day doing everything alone except when she is on the phone and thus talks more in social situation or when husband comes home.

High school drop outs with or without children do very badly in this economy. But when you have children while relying on unstable minimum wage income from irregular hours, then it is all triple harder.

Lastly, teenage years are not biologically ideal. Teenagers have more pregnancy complications, including expensive ones and dangerous ones. As in, having child during your twenties is healthier for you and child. Both under 18 and over 35 are associated with more risks.

I think as a poster said below, your views have probably not been updated for a very long time. The cost of everything essential has gone up since you had your children.

From my hometown (edit: just to be clear, this is a low-CoL city and my friends mostly 24-27 years old), no one that I know owns a tesla or similar luxury object. A larger percentage of my friends from back home are married compared to my friends from university, but still almost none of them have started families. I can't speak for them all, but the impression I get is that the people who are on track for something that could be considered a career (teaching, for example) are focusing on their careers. Those who didn't end up with a career but did go to college are more or less drowning in college debt. Those who didn't go to college are trying to work their way up to a higher education through part-time community college and what not.

In other words, I agree with your central thesis that this is by choice that the birthrate is declining. In particular, the fact that women now have the choice to start careers and earn money instead of going to college for an "MRS" degree and then starting a family (I know exactly one person in my high school class who wanted to do this, and she does indeed have two beautiful children today). But difficulty getting debt-free for college graduates, and difficulty owning property, are certainly contributing factors, because it provides external pressure on couples that they need to spend more energy+effort on their career. As I understand, raising children requires a considerable amount of energy+effort, so the conflict there should be quite obvious.

Raising a kid to the expectations of an upper or even upper-middle class family costs orders of magnitude more than raising a kid to the expectations of a poor family. But said upper middle class family probably doesn't make a proportionally larger amount. I'd consider someone "poor" if they make 20-25k a year and "wealthy" if they make 200-250k+. But the costs of raising a child to the expectations of the latter is probably more than 10 times greater. Probably 20-30 times greater. Thus why kids are more proportionally expensive for higher income class people.