Hi Dan - thank you for wanting to spread the word. You can find me on Twitter/X @stephenjshaw. I also have the www.birthgap.org website. You can expect more activity from me here on Substack in the future as well as on other social media. Best, Stephen
I've shared this with my 3 adult children. My daughter has 3 children, my sons, 30 & 31 none. At 62 I think part of the solution to be personal responsibility. If I stay fit and healthy for as long as possible then along with delaying my need for external resources of support I can also reduce the number of years I need support. Rather than being a burden on society I can continue to contribute for longer.
with the plandemic and the nwo agenda, we will see, over the coming years, a continuing decline in the population. there are many factors in play here~
Hi Stephen - I came here from your interview with Chris Williamson, whom I discovered a few days ago.
I've been following this story from the 2000s, when Charles Goodhart was pretty much a lone voice in the wilderness. (Charles had to do other work in order to survive academically, of course, so a cursory glance through his oeuvre might miss the population stuff.) I still while away the odd hour on the UNDP Population Division's "World Population Prospects" (WPP) website every now and then.
The major causes of fertility decline are well known: increasing female age at marriage, later household formation, the germ theory of disease (vaccination, clean water, sanitary disposal), television/media access, and female literacy. Increasing agricultural labor productivity was also a factor. Contraception's effect was secondary, as was urbanisation's, although child investment in a zero-sum context may have latterly become salient--I'm no longer keeping up with the literature.
On "television": I recall reading, many years ago, a study of a "natural experiment" in Brazil, where for reasons, one part of a province got TV, and a neighboring one did not. Differences in fertility showed up straight away; it was theorised that happened because telenovelas showed smaller families and better living than in the viewers' own lives. I believe this study was replicated with studies in Bangladesh and parts of northern India. Fertility decline accelerated as soon as television came. One mechanism was female migration to cities, delaying household formation. Another was the simple display of a role model, allowing young women to withstand pressure from their families and neighbours.
Demographers are in denial, for the most part. In their models, they posit a (slow or fast) "reversion to replacement", because, ... uh, because, ... hmm. "We want it to happen", maybe? Certainly the WPP charts show this fantasy.
For ideas to reverse fertility decline, should we wish to, we could look to the situation at the last time when western fertility was above replacement: the Baby Boom.
Boomers' parents had heavily subsidised, plentiful housing, and in employment, one male wage--male wage, note--at age 22, could support a family of five, allowing respectability, material comfort, healthcare, education costs, savings, and holidays.
I think that reinstating those conditions *may* be enough to return fertility to replacement, but probably not. Certainly anything less will not. Evolution has seen to that.
Of course such policies (on housing and wages) have zero chance of being adopted. This is one of those "individual wellbeing vs. collective welfare" problems.
Hi Dan - thank you for wanting to spread the word. You can find me on Twitter/X @stephenjshaw. I also have the www.birthgap.org website. You can expect more activity from me here on Substack in the future as well as on other social media. Best, Stephen
Thank you Eddy. PS I will be posting articles here in future - please stay tuned.
I've shared this with my 3 adult children. My daughter has 3 children, my sons, 30 & 31 none. At 62 I think part of the solution to be personal responsibility. If I stay fit and healthy for as long as possible then along with delaying my need for external resources of support I can also reduce the number of years I need support. Rather than being a burden on society I can continue to contribute for longer.
with the plandemic and the nwo agenda, we will see, over the coming years, a continuing decline in the population. there are many factors in play here~
Thank you for a well made documentary that is so important and such an eye opener.
Hi Stephen - I came here from your interview with Chris Williamson, whom I discovered a few days ago.
I've been following this story from the 2000s, when Charles Goodhart was pretty much a lone voice in the wilderness. (Charles had to do other work in order to survive academically, of course, so a cursory glance through his oeuvre might miss the population stuff.) I still while away the odd hour on the UNDP Population Division's "World Population Prospects" (WPP) website every now and then.
The major causes of fertility decline are well known: increasing female age at marriage, later household formation, the germ theory of disease (vaccination, clean water, sanitary disposal), television/media access, and female literacy. Increasing agricultural labor productivity was also a factor. Contraception's effect was secondary, as was urbanisation's, although child investment in a zero-sum context may have latterly become salient--I'm no longer keeping up with the literature.
On "television": I recall reading, many years ago, a study of a "natural experiment" in Brazil, where for reasons, one part of a province got TV, and a neighboring one did not. Differences in fertility showed up straight away; it was theorised that happened because telenovelas showed smaller families and better living than in the viewers' own lives. I believe this study was replicated with studies in Bangladesh and parts of northern India. Fertility decline accelerated as soon as television came. One mechanism was female migration to cities, delaying household formation. Another was the simple display of a role model, allowing young women to withstand pressure from their families and neighbours.
Demographers are in denial, for the most part. In their models, they posit a (slow or fast) "reversion to replacement", because, ... uh, because, ... hmm. "We want it to happen", maybe? Certainly the WPP charts show this fantasy.
For ideas to reverse fertility decline, should we wish to, we could look to the situation at the last time when western fertility was above replacement: the Baby Boom.
Boomers' parents had heavily subsidised, plentiful housing, and in employment, one male wage--male wage, note--at age 22, could support a family of five, allowing respectability, material comfort, healthcare, education costs, savings, and holidays.
I think that reinstating those conditions *may* be enough to return fertility to replacement, but probably not. Certainly anything less will not. Evolution has seen to that.
Of course such policies (on housing and wages) have zero chance of being adopted. This is one of those "individual wellbeing vs. collective welfare" problems.
Other than Substack, what other social media sites are you on? I really want to spread the word but I can't find you anywhere.
I found the figures on involuntary childlessness you cite striking. Where can I find the original data?
Awesome part 1! Excited to see the rest. I hope robots are mentioned in parts 2 and 3 as a possible labor supply