I totally agree with this, and think this may be the strongest argument for why the development of artificial wombs could paradoxically worsen fertility rates if developed.
medinot
Karma: 19
With regards to your point on harms of population collapse. My belief is that changes to population structure that increases the ratio of non-working-to-working people increases the likelihood of permanent recession. I can only think of negative consequences for this outcome. The promise that a reduced labour force will not lead to recession due to compensatory large-scale automation from AGI within the next 20 years is something I do not weight as highly as others.
Thanks for sharing the post from Our Wold in Data—this is a great resource.
One driver you’ve listed from this article (the empowerment of women) seems to be an explanation for the growing ‘fertility gap’ observed in many developing nations (0.3 in the UK). This study assessing women within their fertility window found those with a university-level education did not start thinking about having children until 33, at which point their fertility is notably reduced relative to its peak. I wonder if having artificial wombs would minimise this gap by extending the fertility window of women who want to conceive and have a full professional career.
I believe your latter points (people not having children due to having more ‘interesting things to do’, concerns around high birth rates in fanatical religious groups, and AGI-driven increases) are too speculative for me to incorporate into my thinking.
Thank you so much for this thoughtful and pragmatic response. I agree with all of these points.
I had a look at Hungary’s income incentives briefly and am astounded by how extreme they are. There is a non-linear reduction on your taxable income per additional child you have ($203 per per child per month for one child vs. $667 per child per month for three children).
Also, which forum do you recommend I share any research on?