Assuming you could maintain a world population of around 2.1 - 2.4 and keep the world population dead steady, at what population number would you like that to be?
I'm sure technological advances might make it so that more efficient use of crops and water *could* support a considerably larger population in the future, but I'm talking about with today's technology, what's your ideal human population size for earth?
Summary:
So just read that birth rates are dropping globally, I’m 26f, and honestly I don’t think I’m ever going to have a child, I work full time in fact I live at work and visit home at this point, get paid monthly and by the end of each month my previous wage is pretty much gone from expenses, I still live at home with parents because I literally cannot afford rent.
I have an older brother also doesn’t have children, he managed to do up a small space behind his gfs parents house, cost a shit ton but there’s no hope of any of us being able to build or buy our own homes… I’d say maybe 2 of his very large friend group have children, there all in their 30’s.
I look at the cost of having kids, the lack of security in my life, and the fact I already have no time for anything outside of work, I can’t imagine having to come home and care for another human after work, my brother made a very good point also, we are at a point in time where parents kids are more familiar with the babysitter or crèche than they are their own parents, because of the fact that both parents have to continue to work forever pretty much to scrape by and afford life and a kid, this is not normal and I just can’t imagine the stress of another human on top of already crippling expenses and lack of time. What’s everyone else’s opinions?
More than half of all SK citizens live in Seoul, an unaffordable city that doesn't have enough space to support families.
Rural areas are being depleted of young people that leave for the city in search of work. Those young people are then on a hamster wheel of working to the bone just to barely scrape by.
Seoul has become a sink, where the population of SK is sucked towards and then flushed away.
Across South Korea over 500 cafes, restaurants, & public facilities (including some libraries) explicitly ban children under the age of 13 to maintain a quiet atmosphere for adults.
A 2025 Japanese paper suggests that may be underestimating the fertility goal needed to insure population survival.
While 2.1 is the number needed for mathematical survival, unexpected events (wars, plagues, etc) point to the need for a larger buffer for a given population, especially in regard to small populations and cultures.
The Shizuoka University paper, "Threshold fertility for the avoidance of extinction under critical conditions" (lead author Diane Carmeliza N. Cuaresma, April 30, 2025) argues that the required fertility rate to avoid eventual extinction should be 2.7, not 2.1.
The Abstract:
>The developed countries now face a low fertility crisis. The replacement level fertility (RLF) is conventionally considered to be 2.1 children per woman, in which demographic stochasticity arising from random variations in individual offspring numbers is ignored. However, the importance of demographic stochasticity casts doubts on the adequacy of the replacement level fertility of 2.1, especially in a small population. Here, we investigate the extinction threshold for the fertility rate of a sexually reproducing population caused by demographic stochasticity. The results indicate that the fertility rate should exceed 2.7 to avoid extinction. The extinction threshold is reduced by a female-biased sex ratio. We argue that the present results explain the observed phenomena of female-biased births under severe conditions as an effective way to avoid extinction. Furthermore, since fertility rates are below this threshold in developed countries, family lineages of almost all individuals are destined to go extinct eventually.
From the paper, a passage that caught my eye, which is of importance to those who especially value their family line:
>It should be remarked that this condition has already been met in developed countries. Extinction is not an immediate issue owing to the large population size in these countries. However, the present results have a profound implication from an individual perspective: The family lineages of almost all individuals are destined to go extinct, whereas very few exceptions may survive for many generations (Figs 3 and 4). Languages also face the risk of extinction, with at least 40% of more than 6,700 spoken languages in the world threatened to disappear within the next 100 years [39,40]. The extinction of a language results in the disappearance of a culture, art, music and oral traditions [39].
Responses:
Femosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o26qy_J1T20
Manosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=103u6EunqBo
I'm so glad that I can choose the people I interact with. I would hate to be in some scenario where I had to interact with people regularly that are this polarised. I appreciate my other half beyond words, and pray that my kids will be able to navigate their way to avoid these hateful and judgmental and unselfaware people.
Recently a new videogame came out called 'Pragmata' (Father Simulator) and it's one of a few recent overtly natalist new pieces of media. And by that I media that shows the raising of children as a morally good correct thing a human should be doing.
This is in contrast to the media I grew up on that showed children as an inconvenience, a burden, and that having children would be the end of your life. Take the infamous Captain Planet scene for example:
https://i.redd.it/3tdpbfdf3xdf1.png
I wanted to see what others thought? Any other new overtly natalist games, movies, TV, etc?
Hypothetically speaking, let's say that low fertility rates become a huge problem in the developed world. What's stopping the US from just opening its borders to Europe like in the early 1900s without any visas to stay and work, just check if the person has no criminal background, serious illnesses and approve them on the spot.
US already has a higher tfr than all of europe at about 1.60, only similar to France, however all other European countries boast lower rates putting them in a worse situation, so a good amount of people would migrate from countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, UK etc. In fact, I already know young people who idolize the US and would move there in the near future if it was as easy as moving within the EU.
Which makes me wonder, why are there so many posts from people in the US complaining about falling fertility rates when they could just use the worse economic state of Europe to open its borders and do the same thing it did over a hundred years ago, EU + UK already has roughly 520 million people, so even a small % migrating would fill in the gaps.
How do you guys make of it
Usual argument on here: modern people are used to a higher standard of living and are "materialistic", therefore they prioritise spending money on their wants versus having children. The Amish accept a lower standard of living, hence they can afford so many children. The problem isn't finances; it's culture affecting priorities
The majority of natalists are Conservative - highly Conservative. You make posts here all the time pointing out the political disparity in opinion towards natalism, so you can't pick and choose when this applies. Liberals can be natalists, but you know it is firmly a Conservative thing, because -obviously.-
Highly Conservative people tend to be pro-capitalism and free markets.
Up until a few years ago, Conservatives were telling us that capitalism creates higher standards of living and drives innovation. Therefore, we apparently have to put up with the many downsides of this system because living standards are rising.
These same people are overwhelmingly pro-capitalism.
Now that birth rates are collapsing, we apparently have to abandon modern technology like the Amish and have to accept lower standards of living to save the economy.
Pick a lane.
If you have to take such drastic measures to save your economy, what does that say about your economy.
"Young people have become accustomed to a high standard of living" (supposedly)... What system did that then lol (supposedly).
"Smartphones are the cause of lower birth rates?" um 5 years ago you were saying capitalism made the smartphones Twitter socialists were typing on as a checkmate?
Pick a lane.
