No, the pronatalist movement is premised on the belief that humans should not go extinct. If the entire world had the Korean birthrate (and it does seem to be moving that way), extinction would happen in 25 generations.
Why would anyone assume that just because we enter a decline that we would remain on that same trajectory?
Surely when there is enough decline, resources become plentiful for those that remain, and people have more kids because of that? Just my naive thought.
But there is reason to expect the trajectory to change. Currently the expectation is that, even if most people died out, there are very fecund (and very religious) groups that would repopulate the world. So the pro-natalism movement isn't needed to save humanity, just to save the 'normal' people.
You can see how this would spiral. The society that makes it out of such a spiral is unfortunately the society that stops caring for it's elderly. The transition period would obviously be extremely unsavory and socially catastrophic. What winds up happening is people become incentivized to have kids so that they have someone to take care of them, and those who have more kids inherit the society a couple of generations down. That's what reversal of this trend looks like, it's not just about population numbers, median age is an even more consequential factor.
I’m also not sure that population decline would lead to plentiful resources in a sense that matters. Do people in Detroit feel rich because houses are so plentiful after the 1950s population high?
The birthrate will change dramatically after a few generations of low growth.
25 generations is over 600 years!
I do think my original point still stands that we seem to be quite bad at making good decisions for more immediate generations. Considering our rather pressing current challenges (climate change, continued warfare, etc.) I'd settle for getting the next few generations in a better place before thinking about 25 generations from now.
For South Korea specifically, the population challenges are probably more immediate than other countries.
Not saying the trend will 100% continue, but looking how hard is life for a young person in an ageing society it appears to be self-perpetuating.
You'd need something to put all those old people holding all the votes and wealth out of the picture.
[0] Global population growth rate peaked in 1963 and is now at a level last seen before WW2.
A species producing babies is not extinct, by definition.
Well, let's kind of obvious why Korea's birthrdate is low. It's because it's extremely expensive to have a child in a small country with limited resources and competition for them. Women are also getting more educated and emancipated and want more out of life than being somebody's wife, mother, and tons of unpaid labor: cleaning, cooking, etc. That was possible in the past, but capitalism has advanced so much that women are also expected to work in addition to their other chores, in order for the family to make ends meet. Hence, when Korean women have a choice nowadays, increasingly, their choice is to focus on themselves and not start a family.
The less people there are, the more free resources and less competition, hence more incentive and possibility to have a child. Korea is a hyper competitive capitalist society with huge incomes disparity, expensive childcare, soaring rents, and little living space. If you want high birth rates, make the country the opposite, make it more social: long parental leave, high job security, worker protection programs, social housing, low inequality, accessible healthcare, early retirement age, etc.
> No, the pronatalist movement is premised on the belief that humans should not go extinct
Yeah, but what are their real motives? How I see it, if you are a:
- pronatalist and a capitalist, you want more drones for your factories and offices
- pronatalist and religious, you want more souls for your deity of choice
- pronatalist and a nationalist, you want more people to fight your wars
- pronatalist and old, you want other people to take care of you and pay your pension
My point is, it's infuriating that we live in a system where paying rent working two jobs is near impossible, but at the same time people complaining that there are no children. Fix capitalism, and people'd start having children.
Probably feelings wise, yes. It's one thing to be dirt poor along with everyone else around you, and another thing to be dirt poor in 9m2 apartment, and seeing skyscraper lofts from your window where 1 month rent is equivalent to your yearly salary.
> Korea is perhaps the clearest disproof of the resources -> children argument,
Wrong. Korea is, in reality, a perfect example of resources -> children argument, a perfect example of how bad capitalism is for society.
Korea has a huge income inequality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality_in_South_K...
That means a huge portion of the population is considered poor. Hence, a large portion of their population feels like they don't have the resources to have children, afford daycare, rent, food, etc.
Absolutely! Or at least the perception of financial inequality.
In the 60s after the war, the country was industrializing which increased inequality.
Only in the 80s that temporarily stopped, known as the "Miracle on the Han River”. After the 80s, inequality has just been increasing, with increased number of the population KNOWING about it. It's the reason why you have movies like Parasite, shows like Squid Games, and the rising discontent for the chaebols.
In any case, people FEEL largely so downtrodden and without access to resources, that they don't want to have children. Solve that feeling of inequality (by investing in social welfare programs and taxing the s*it out the rich), and you solve the population crisis.