Last month I hiked through the Swiss mountains, paraglided into Davos, snuck through security, then gave a talk on the macroeconomic, social and political implications of falling fertility.
My take is that our society is fundamentally hostile to children. Parents want to spend time with their kids and see them grow up in supportive and flourishing community. That our society cannot provide this is, I suspect, the main reason for the declining number of children.
I don’t see it that way. AI is a little soul crushing, but people are generally pursuing it for the benefit of people. Even if the only people benefitting is themselves.
Also the US spends about $1 trillion on education every year. Just as a measure of how much we spend on humans.
1. the underline principle is flawed. Any type of spending is meant to benefit people. We don’t spend money to benefit machines. We don’t build roads to benefit cars. There is a real possibility that AI will be a net negative for humanity. Even then it will need to benefit for the humans that are in power otherwise it will fail.
2. Check your sources. Which model is spending 1 trillion? $1 trillion is often the number given for the current planned spending for the industry over several years.
I dont disagree, but I was thinking of other things. For example, that we will invest one trillion dollars (at least) to create even more powerful AI. Isnt that an indication that we value machines more than humans? Children are just not efficient.
I do wish people would try harder to imagine how we can make parenting easier. (And childbirth for that matter less risky and more straight forward) How do we organize groups of parents or community member who can help offload some of the burdens of parenthood? If this occurred and there was more equity at home would people be more inclined?
Perhaps we need to reintroduce society to boarding schools?
Great presentation! Was thinking a better response to the climate change/environmental problem question would be along these lines below (though you did reference the second half of my attempt in other words). I have been trying to figure out a way to answer this question succinctly, so if you have any thoughts, do share!
"Fertility changes operate on a very slow timescale (also why we find it so hard to take it seriously and understand that reversal is VERY hard) while climate mitigation requires large emission reductions in the next 10–30 years. Also, a baby born today contributes very little to emissions for the next 20 years and global population momentum means existing generations will dominate emissions for decades. Academic analyses have shown that even very large fertility reductions barely affect emissions before 2050. By contrast, energy system changes can reduce emissions immediately. And population decline can slow climate solutions because very low fertility produces aging populations, smaller labour forces, and reduced economic dynamism. These conditions can make it harder to finance large energy transitions, build infrastructure, and sustain and produce innovation. Economists sometimes describe this as a reduced “transition capacity”, which refers to the economic, institutional, and workforce capacity required to transform energy systems quickly."
Birth rates falling below replacement are an outcome of policies intended to reap the benefit of women moving into the 'productive' economy (paid work) while failing to institute policies recognising the future value of children to this productive economy. The latter is a tragedy of the commons type problem.
Surely there have been many studies of effective regulation of commons that could provide some direction to solving this failure? I leave suggestions to more knowledgeable people than myself.
Though I note that this will require an approach that rewards both men and women in line with their respective contributions.
The problem is that for a very long time, main male contribution to fertility was of rather short duration and came with its own, instantaneous reward.
I disagree, especially as applies to the historical past, something approaching monogamy (more or less male assistance with provisioning) is recorded as the predominant human reproductive strategy, though the genome as a whole suggests moderate levels of polygyny has operated for some million and more years.
From the genome it is hard to identify causes from outcomes. For example, the neolithic transition to farming is associated with extreme (17:1) female vs male reproductive success. Superficially, this suggests a few males maintained large harems of females. However, this has also been modelled as a product of interclan warfare with victorious patriarchal clans eliminating the males of defeated clans [search "cultural hitchiking" to find the paper].
Granted it does seem some males produced many offspring from many women (eg the Genghis Khan model), however we can't yet say whether they were a minority or majority contributor to sexual selection within a population. I await the genetic studies that show what the actual relative contributions (of monogamy and polygamy) have been through the [historical] past. I presume they vary with local culture so the effects rise and fall geographically and temporally as cultures change. To identify them large sample sizes through time and across space are required to tease out their relative impacts.
It will be interesting to see to what extent the genetic evidence confirms or disproves historical accounts. David Reich, the influential genetisist, for example suggests that analysis of ancient genomes has contradicted many cherished beliefs.: "People's stories about their history are almost always wrong" [https://youtu.be/ra6sKKDvA3M?t=3702]
I know. I was just joking :-) But it does appear to be a very tempting strategy for some! I read somewhere that 2% of Chinese people are descendants of Genghis Khan. Thanks for the references. Very interesting area.
It presumes cultural continuity from 1980 to present and on to 2075. Given the amount of cultural (and policy) change over the past 100 years, its findings may be correct on direction but unreliable on magnitude.
So delighted and impressed to see you presenting your wonderful work at Davos.
My take is that our society is fundamentally hostile to children. Parents want to spend time with their kids and see them grow up in supportive and flourishing community. That our society cannot provide this is, I suspect, the main reason for the declining number of children.
💯
I don’t see it that way. AI is a little soul crushing, but people are generally pursuing it for the benefit of people. Even if the only people benefitting is themselves.
Also the US spends about $1 trillion on education every year. Just as a measure of how much we spend on humans.
The one trillion is not what we spend on AI, it is what we are going to spend to make one model.
There are two issues here.
1. the underline principle is flawed. Any type of spending is meant to benefit people. We don’t spend money to benefit machines. We don’t build roads to benefit cars. There is a real possibility that AI will be a net negative for humanity. Even then it will need to benefit for the humans that are in power otherwise it will fail.
2. Check your sources. Which model is spending 1 trillion? $1 trillion is often the number given for the current planned spending for the industry over several years.
Its hostile in the sense that it is more individualistic, adolescence is longer, and people are pursuing other things.
I dont disagree, but I was thinking of other things. For example, that we will invest one trillion dollars (at least) to create even more powerful AI. Isnt that an indication that we value machines more than humans? Children are just not efficient.
I do wish people would try harder to imagine how we can make parenting easier. (And childbirth for that matter less risky and more straight forward) How do we organize groups of parents or community member who can help offload some of the burdens of parenthood? If this occurred and there was more equity at home would people be more inclined?
Perhaps we need to reintroduce society to boarding schools?
Your lectures/interviews are fun to watch.
Boarding schools????
Why would you even have children if you didn’t want to be around them?
Boarding schools are horrible.
Fertiliy is going down. Maybe Mother Earth is trying to tell us something?
Great presentation! Was thinking a better response to the climate change/environmental problem question would be along these lines below (though you did reference the second half of my attempt in other words). I have been trying to figure out a way to answer this question succinctly, so if you have any thoughts, do share!
"Fertility changes operate on a very slow timescale (also why we find it so hard to take it seriously and understand that reversal is VERY hard) while climate mitigation requires large emission reductions in the next 10–30 years. Also, a baby born today contributes very little to emissions for the next 20 years and global population momentum means existing generations will dominate emissions for decades. Academic analyses have shown that even very large fertility reductions barely affect emissions before 2050. By contrast, energy system changes can reduce emissions immediately. And population decline can slow climate solutions because very low fertility produces aging populations, smaller labour forces, and reduced economic dynamism. These conditions can make it harder to finance large energy transitions, build infrastructure, and sustain and produce innovation. Economists sometimes describe this as a reduced “transition capacity”, which refers to the economic, institutional, and workforce capacity required to transform energy systems quickly."
Great talk! Two links are broken--"The Global Rise of Singles" and "Cultural Leapfrogging - Turkish Style".
You know you're in Davos speaking to old millionaires and technocrats when they all have silver thinning hair and hearing aids.
Birth rates falling below replacement are an outcome of policies intended to reap the benefit of women moving into the 'productive' economy (paid work) while failing to institute policies recognising the future value of children to this productive economy. The latter is a tragedy of the commons type problem.
Surely there have been many studies of effective regulation of commons that could provide some direction to solving this failure? I leave suggestions to more knowledgeable people than myself.
Though I note that this will require an approach that rewards both men and women in line with their respective contributions.
The problem is that for a very long time, main male contribution to fertility was of rather short duration and came with its own, instantaneous reward.
I disagree, especially as applies to the historical past, something approaching monogamy (more or less male assistance with provisioning) is recorded as the predominant human reproductive strategy, though the genome as a whole suggests moderate levels of polygyny has operated for some million and more years.
From the genome it is hard to identify causes from outcomes. For example, the neolithic transition to farming is associated with extreme (17:1) female vs male reproductive success. Superficially, this suggests a few males maintained large harems of females. However, this has also been modelled as a product of interclan warfare with victorious patriarchal clans eliminating the males of defeated clans [search "cultural hitchiking" to find the paper].
Granted it does seem some males produced many offspring from many women (eg the Genghis Khan model), however we can't yet say whether they were a minority or majority contributor to sexual selection within a population. I await the genetic studies that show what the actual relative contributions (of monogamy and polygamy) have been through the [historical] past. I presume they vary with local culture so the effects rise and fall geographically and temporally as cultures change. To identify them large sample sizes through time and across space are required to tease out their relative impacts.
It will be interesting to see to what extent the genetic evidence confirms or disproves historical accounts. David Reich, the influential genetisist, for example suggests that analysis of ancient genomes has contradicted many cherished beliefs.: "People's stories about their history are almost always wrong" [https://youtu.be/ra6sKKDvA3M?t=3702]
I know. I was just joking :-) But it does appear to be a very tempting strategy for some! I read somewhere that 2% of Chinese people are descendants of Genghis Khan. Thanks for the references. Very interesting area.
Is it possible to have the video on YouTube as well
I would be interested to hear your take on https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.20251462
It presumes cultural continuity from 1980 to present and on to 2075. Given the amount of cultural (and policy) change over the past 100 years, its findings may be correct on direction but unreliable on magnitude.
Bad link.... the 'lessons from Hong Kong' link goes to the 'collective action' paper.
Now corrected: https://www.ggd.world/p/why-has-fertility-plummeted-insights
Thank you!