Go to piavpn.com/KaiserBauch to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free

its the breakdown of the family, raising a child is torture without relatives

I've got 2 babies at the same time (twins), what is quite a challenge haha. We moved from a capital city to a much smaller town. A price for apartment is like 2 - 2.5 less than in Warsaw. I work remotely, so I don't have to commute. The apartment we bought is not only affordable, but also in the city centre. Everything is in walkable distance. There's also a nice park. If I had to live in a big city, it wouldn't be possible. I couldn't buy anything decent in Warsaw

The time spent becoming educated is a big factor that needs to be considered. It consumes so much of our lives from childhood to adulthood. Its incredibly common for people to not have time for relationships growing up, or for it to be discouraged by parents and teachers so children can focus on school. A lot of people end up in their mid twenties with no romantic experience and no idea how to get into one. Adult working life doesnt exactly leave one with much free time either

I would add 2 more causes: -Popular culture showing upper middle class as a averege/median. To achieve this people cut costs - biggest cost is "next child". -retirement systems nationalise profists of having children (only age and years of work matters).

I live in Brazil. What I see is that most people doesn't like kids at all. The ones who do, are having children, despite the difficulties. I think if you completely remove "accidental pregnancy" (dont believe such thing) from Brazil, it would have the lowest fertility rate in the world

The cause of civilizations' success is usually the same as its decline. We industrialized, urbanized, and radically changed our culture. This allowed for massive growth, but is now the reason for our downfall.

We may have to come to terms with the fact that the current economic model simply isn't child friendly. If you look at the numbers, birth rates have been falling for 200 years. (Europe specifically) 1800 - 6, 1900 - 4 by 1970 it is around 2.3 (some countries already below replacement) This is before mass immigration, expensive housing, dating apps or birth control. Make of that what you will.

For the Feminism part, I think urbanization and destructing local communities caused this situation. Nobody wants to be stay-home wife in isolated nuclear families. I think local communities used to be somewhat female territories where they can be a part of a society and brag about how their children are doing well. By destroying local communities, women lost their society and had no other choice but to compete with men on the same field. IMO Feminism is just a superficial symptom of the situation we have cooked for centuries, and that was initiated by urbanization and destruction of local communities.

We need grandparents to help like the old days. People today want to spend their retirement traveling and don’t want to help out with the grandkids. My grandmothers worked, their mothers before worked. You know who took care of the children back then? The grandparents, grand aunts and uncles. People had many children because they had help at home, They were poor so it was not because of money.

Many of my friends can't find a girlfriend for years, many have given up. They want to have children, but when it's physically impossible it's hard to talk about higher fertility. Every young woman flees to the BIG5 (I'm from Poland, BIG5 = 5 largest cities), small and medium cities consist of old people, fewer and fewer young children and bachelors who start drinking more and more as they get older. And in big cities, these women's demands grow to absurd proportions. Many of these women complain all the time because a tall, rich, handsome guy won't fulfill her instagram dream. I have no more hope for my mates, it's over.

I feel one of the main points often missed out by the right is the fact that children, from an economic standpoint are seen as a low-value commodity with an extremely high capex and opex in tandem with the wide availability of birth control & contraceptives AND the increasing literacy/educational rates of women. Once women are liberated from their traditional roles as homemakers and given the choice of wanting more or fewer kids, the fertility rate straight up plummets. As a society's GDP increases and the citizens become richer, higher and more expensive standards arise as people demand better quality of life for themselves and their children which propels a cascade of constantly increasing prices of complex services which in turn also come into play whenever prospective parents think about having children. TL;DR people think children are low-value commodities

“The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of ‘mutual understanding.” It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady’s who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine’s who “belongs to herself” - they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful. The same fact, in conjunction with the same arguments, is to be found in the Alexandrian, in the Roman and, as a matter of course, in every other civilized society - and conspicuously in that in which Buddha grew up.” - Oswald Spengler

For the women part, where you said that societal survival is also in question I will just quote one female who posted an answer to my qeustion regard this exact thing: "Nah. Even if the species was to extinct, I wouldn't make kids. In fact, I WISH for human extinction. The advancement of humanity was the worst thing to happen to this planet." I think her comment perfectly shows what most of modern feminists think when qeustion of induvial right vs survival of the species pops up.

You forgot microplastics on the balls

All of these are influencing factors. The collapse however, is about the meaning of life. A survey of DESIRED fertility among female Chinese college students found an average desire of 1.0 child/woman. This is before personal finances can even prevent births, so the actual fertility rate will be much lower than even 1.0. The US in 2007 was literate, urbanized, ~secular, and feministic, and yet had above-replacement fertility. Israel as well. It's about belief in life path. My father is a very anti-natalist, 'humans have ruined everything' type of guy, yet he has two kids. "We are animals, its what we do." My brother firmly believes he will never have children, he claims he is escaping his fate as an animal, in a sort of transhumanist way. He sees having children as unsustainable. Most of the youth see endless consumption, whether experiential (out on the town), or of the endless media that is digitally available as a satisfactory mode of life. Some of my (intelligent) friends with health problems think their genes aren't worth passing on, others think they would be incapable of raising a child. The primary difference between now and then is that then, humans were the most interesting feature of your world. You went outside, talked to women, had sex, had children, then had to take care of them. Now it is all optional. Add to this the fact that internet-raised children tend to be avoidant and risk-adverse, porn provides a risk-free alternative outlet for sexual desire, social media inflation of standards etc. etc. I can say confidently that the urban-leftist zoomers of America will have a fertility rate below 1.0. I think 0.6 for this group is quite likely. The Christian conservatives that retain the cultural value of raising children may sustain the overall rate at above 1.0. Its all about culture, about what you believe is possible and good for your life. The media culture of modernity has turned the masses against reproduction.

Honestly I wish the US and Europe were more like East Asia in certain regards. While you can come back from population collapse eventually, immigration and ethnic dilution are far more permanent and damaging…

My great-grandmothers were highly literate, they all had more than five children, one had eight. Their parents left their religious faith before they were born. Maybe we're the exception.

I can’t wait for your videos on potential solutions.

The tax on childlessness was a natalist policy imposed in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries, starting in the 1941. Joseph Stalin's regime created the tax in order to encourage adult people to reproduce, thus increasing the number of people and the population of the Soviet Union. The 6% income tax affected men from the age of 25 to 50, and women from 20 to 45 years of age.The tax remained in place until the collapse of the Soviet Union. This propaganda communist policy made the Soviet Union's birth rate always between 2.6-2,3 during the period 1960 -1990 . And the Soviet Union was the first country in the world to legalize abortion in 1918 .But then abortion was Ban again in 1933 as a result of the birth rate dropping from 7.0 (1920) to 4.0 (1930) .After the tax on chilliness was implemented (1941). Abortion was legalized again in 1955.

Under every video about birthrates I see normies claiming that life is just too expensive these days to have more kids. And while I'm sure increased housing prices have played some role, it's just an obvious red herring. Why, if the problem is not having enough money, would it be all the richest countries on earth that have the lowest fertility and all the poorest countries that have the highest? It's purely a matter of what people are choosing to spend their money on, and in richer countries they have many more options. Anecdotally, among the (depressingly many) young women I talk to who say they don't want kids, not a single one has said the reason is because they're too expensive.

I've read somewere that an average Muscovite woman had 12 kids in 1600s, during the rise of the Muscovite Tsardom and its evolution into Russia.

Your first point is wrong! You could just as easily have claimed that the birth rate has fallen because women now also wear pants. Being able to read and write does not reduce the birth rate. Otherwise this would have already happened in Europe in the 19th century when compulsory education was introduced. But that didn't happen; on the contrary, the population in Europe grew enormously back then. It was urbanization that brought this about. Suddenly, it was expensive to have children and there was no benefit to having them as there was in the countryside where they could help with the work and you could have enough food for them by growing your own food. However, the mechanization of agriculture and the use of fertilizers meant that far fewer people were needed for food production than before. However, the poor African countries have not yet taken this step, or only partially.

IMO, In the US, for the most part, when the US was mostly rural, children were an asset: they contributed labor. As people migrated to cities children became a liability as they were not needed to contribute labor.

Never made enough money to get married, much less have children. I'm in my early 60s with a BA and I've worked most of my life. My sister has done better, but she never got married, either, she teaches at a public school and has an MFA and national teaching certificate. She's worn her body out. She's had surgery for bone spurs, had a knee replacement, and had surgery on one of her shoulders; she's always in pain now at 60. If you want more children, you have to pay people substantially more and make sure there's enough decent jobs out there. My sister wants to retire at 65, I plan to keep working into my 70s.

Always a pleasure seeing you upload. Insights is always appreciated, thanks

Can you make a video about the Netherlands demographics and immigration please? I really like your work so please keep doing what you are doing👍

I dont like when people say american birth rates are failing to things like no martinery leave, or no free child care, because many countries have those things and still have falling birth rates. all 1st world countries have falling birth rates.

Great work dude. I am curious about your future explorations of this broader topic. Thanks for the mention :)

I think that decentralization of powers from states and central governments to municapabilitys would help. it would basically make each municapability a small population in small area that needs to treat themselves as a local family and local tradition maybe it would give someone a some sort of local patriotism and thus hope for more children. Sorry for my english 😊

Hearing a czech talk about a religious topic is interesting considering that the Czech Republic is probably the most irreligious country in the world

I think economics are a big contributing factor for lower birth rates. People in poorer countries have larger families despite less means because standards of living are much lower. In poor countries with high fertility rates , children are seen as an asset as they can provide for the family. It is also socially acceptable to have 10 children living in a mud hut. Whereas in richer countries children are an economic burden and our standards of living are much higher. We want a quality of life for our children and if we were to let our kids live the way they do in 3rd world countries it wouldn’t be socially acceptable and you’d have your kids taken from you. So in order to give your kids a quality of life, it’s prohibitively expensive for some.

good video, looking forward to more in depth analysis like this

You touched on the life cycle briefly when you mentioned the idealization of life in rural areas. When young people grow up, they find that there is not much to do (boring), thus striving to move to more vibrant cities where the actions occur. Then, meet a person and start to talk about family. For optimum growing-up conditions, they often look at suburbs and (preferable) single-family houses if they can afford them. Thus, observing lower birth rates in cities is expected. Cheers.

25:15 You touch briefly on the "urban planning crowd" -- I do think there is more to explore here. The world has moved a lot towards "top down" approaches, centralized (even global) planning, highly specialized skill sets, and I do think that's part of the issue. People who favor everything being master planned will also do this in their personal lives. You can only master plan things using existing and known concepts. You can master plan a house using known existing building materials but you can't master plan a house with novel materials. When you're planning your personal life, you, your spouse, your kids, are all novel unique humans. You can't master plan your entire life. You have to jump in and figure it out as you go at some point. So the master planning types will have trouble settling down because no spouse is exactly how they wanted it and it's never quite the right time to have kids. That's why people have pets because they're submissive conforming companions. Higher education heavily steers people toward centralized planning .

Outstanding video. Balanced, objective analysis, clearly expressed and illustrated, and complete. I'm subscribing and looking forward to viewing the rest of your catalog.

May it be that the deconstruction of the "tribe" is one of the primary reasons for a decline in birth rates? The social "tribe" structure may be most beneficial for high birth rates. It would also be one explanation why villages on average have higher birth rates. If you compare different societys around the globe you could make an argument that east asias social structure is the farthest away from the original tribe structure. American suburban live seems closer. When you think about the concept of a "neighbourhood". When you have all generations and sexes living together and in contact with each other it is way more obvious for young people (especially woman) what it means to grow old without a family. In Vienna there are new city concepts which basically recreate a village in a city block with all generations living together and most basic needs available in your block. This could be a solution but definitely needs further research.

The only solution for this is to disconnect the younger generation's contribution from having to pay taxes for the elder that is not their family. Otherwise, the younger will never accrue money for themselves nor have enough for their children and the problem will get worse and worse. The childless elder will not care as they will have no personal investment in society... they will vote for their own interests at the cost of other people's families. Finally, we need propaganda: "This is the loneliness and personal disaster that happen if you put job first and forget your family." Otherwise this will keep happening again and again every generation.

Kind of difficult to hint at it as a possible negative root cause, but it may be the abundance of potential and options. The pressure still exists, but we are spending more time with the selection rather than acceptance.

thanks for the video, btw. Every your video is well-researched.

Your analyses are as fascinating to watch as always! Great work!

You are absolutely right in your video, but I could bet money that your audience is at least 90% male. We boys need to talk about this topic with women. We need to have an open and non-threatening conversation with them if we want to solve the problem.

my grandmother was educated (yes in 1940s) and had 5 kids my mom was educated and had 3 kids my sisters have 0 and my peers want children with a wealthy man only. It is not the literacy that's changing mentalities.

Brilliant well thought vids as always. Keep it up Kaiser!

Amazing work, very enlightening, thank you.

I live in Germany and "make" €80.000/yr gross. Half of my paycheck goes to rent which went up 20% every 3 years, the other half goes to groceries, and utilities which keep rising every month or sometimes every trip to the grocery store. I have no car, no cell phone plan (prepaid €10/mo if I want to use it), and I am barely able to save, certainly not enough to buy my own place one day with my family. Something has to give.

Personally, I think the main reason for falling birthrates is not even religion or house prices but simply women rights. And before someone starts hating on me, no I don't want to take women rights that's just my observation I think is true. In the past when women were basically assets owned by families to marry to a rich guy and were expected to be housewives raising kids there was no issue with birthrates and even if urbanization lowered fertility, it still stayed on above replacement level. Families played a major role, and houses were often multi-generational with all kids and marriages being a family affair. Women were also under massive pressure to have kids and have a husband otherwise she would be seen as a failure and ostracized. But ever since women rights started ramping up, women began to take active part in the workforce the whole social contract fell apart. Children are no longer seen as "wealth of the family" but more like a burden and financial responsibility, women that take part in carrier buildings don't even think about having kids and I don't blame them really. There is no reason to have one and it's almost like a hobby now to have a kid and it's like 80% only 1 kid which still is below replacement level. There are no longer family multi-generational wealth building, parents basically tell kids to fuck off at 18yo and go rent some small room in a city for 60% of your wage when back then the whole family would unconditionally help you raise kids. When women are most fertile between 16-30 and historically at this age were popping out kids are not spending their time on work while after 30 they become ticking biological bomb with each year increasing a chance of autism or some fucked up disability for their potential childbirth and are running out of eggs. I don't know what really the solution for that is, but the whole system is just dysfunctional at it's core and almost anti-natural. Add to that ultra feminist movements and mainstream narrative of children being the worst burden and making a childless woman into some symbol of power which makes things even worse. At this point even is some schizo would take women rights away they would still not have any kids anyway, it's just a completely different way of thinking and no matter with how much money you shower them with they will just not change. And if I were a woman, I would probably don't want any kid either to be honest. You can even see it in 3rd world countries that also have falling birthrates, it's not as if they stopped being poor it's just simply that they got some access to the internet and mobile network with women seeking work carrier mindset getting to them, so the birthrate is falling there too. For now developed countries help themselves by import whoever they can, but at some point, fertility will drop below replacement level everywhere and there will be no one to import. Then I think we will start see serious discussion about artificial wombs and state run raising facilities to keep the economy growing and at that point humanity alive. And China will most likely be the first one to do that.

Thank you for your work. Always high quality analysis

Fascinating. Thank you for your insights.

You brought up larger houses being good for fertility. A factor you didn't mention there is that, in urban areas with more larger houses, housing ends up being far more expensive, which would also negatively impact fertility. The topic of how to design a city so as to maintain the benefits of urbanism without toppling birthrates is a really interesting one, and isn't anywhere near as simple as "build larger houses".

I already gave up, this country (Czech Republic) has no future and governments in last 20 years did nothing with this problem, so we will all die in next few decades, already now, people have to work in their 80s becuase there is noone who could replace them on their well qualified work place and this problem will be even worse. They are surprised that people don't want kids anymore....in situation when your salary is 30 000 CZK and rent of flat is also 30 000 + no kindergartens availavble, which means that one parent has to stay home with kid for years, it's just not possible to have kids, it would be economical suicide, kids are only for rich people or for people who don't care that their kids will be living in shits. I grew up in shits and I will never bring kids to that too, like when you can't pay their school lunches and these things.... State is doing nothing, it doesn't matter if it's ODS, Babiš or ČSSD, they are all useless and didn't solve anything, this country is lost, everyone will move to Poland in future.

Excellent video

Thanks for the video we want more and more of this. Explain the mouse utopia experiment to the tiny details please

The world map of religions is in Catalan! Uoooo my language in a kaiserbauch video! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

You should take a look at the effects of "the pill" on fertility. Multiple economics papers look into its effect in the labor market, which you could use in your videos.

Good job

congrats for the sponsorship bro, making it big

Animals are notoriously difficult to breed on farms, in labs, zoos. I reckon territoriality is a coded thing - you need to be certain you're on your own turf and have privacy. I think urban dwellers shouldn't set rules for everyone, either - delineate metro area and apply their laws there only. Regular people maybe would do better if they perceived cities as sort of a transient thing - you go there to compete and make resources and experience to then use for living outside the city, or fail and be ground into oblivion.

babe wake up, kaiserbauch just uploaded

Interesting video... There does seem to be a clash, and you are asking the right questions. But what, how, when and where can this syncratism be created?

Looks like the west has lost the "Mandate of Heavens"

As for car-dependent, un-walkable suburbia consists of single family homes, I think it does help raising fertility rate, but only for one generation. Living in such suburbia as a child who can't drive is, miserable. I suspect such children are more likely to move to urban area after graduating high school and some of them never go back to suburbia, at least, this is the case for me. In summary, while car-dependent suburbia can boost fertility rate, it also can boost urbanization. IMO making suburbia un-walkable (it's ok to be car-centric though) can really inhibit suburbia from retaining population and communities in there.

What we have created in modernity is unhealthy and unsustainable. We will have to scale back either way. Infinite growth is a dangerous corporate illusion that society has adopted. My guess is that as things get worse and scale back, there will be more room for growth as there would be in an ecosystem, whereby there are limits to growth. Let's hope it does not result in baby factories or Handmaid's tale style scenarios.

I sure would love to see the solutions videos!

This was well thought out, well explained, reasoned, measured, balanced and very interesting. Brilliant video, thanks very much

When the population inevitably crashes, cost of living will crash with it, houses will become cheaper, the job market will become less competitive, then because life will become easier, people will start having lots of kids again, and then the cycle shall repeat itself.

As a civil engineer listening to the "urbanist community" on youtube boils my blood. They are purely motivated by their hatred of cars and spitefulness. It has always been obvious that you don't have to go into logical extremes like american soulless suburbia or cage flats from hongkong. It is actually possible to construct nice liveable towns with decent public transport and that also have medium population density, you can just cleverly place buildings.

Thank you.

Suburban single-family homes also have lots of negatives: less close neighborhood bonds, isolation, the need of commuting and its mental health effects.

I think women are afraid of the physical pain of child birth process as well as the 9 months to bring a baby to term. That’s not even to mention the massive cost in time to care for children speaking of both women and men. However women can’t even be sure man will take care of them (relationship insecurity). Both can’t be sure of a steady income (job insecurity). Both men and women are lothe to give up career, hobbies, and free time for children. They dont think of passing on the family name, or other such things, but only think of current worldly pleasure

Man, I love this channel!

You forgot to mention the key point: cost of living is high. It's expensive to raise children, especially if only one (the man) has to pay for it all. Hence, women kinda have to work in order to have an average living standard. And then we can go back to the dichotomy between women in the work force and time for taking care of children.

Thanks!

I met my wife at university. I´m 32, she´s 30. We have two children 4 and one year old in germany. I study social sciences and wondered a lot about what the main problems are. Men and Women at large are going in opposite directions politically, in terms of activities and also in values. Third places are EXTREMELY needed. Places like churches, meetup places for students like a park, campus, cafeteria or just attractive places to be, meet, stay and enjoy the weather. Society as a whole has become too soft, especially towards young beautiful women. Consumerist Ideology to me seems to be the biggest issue, especially when not countered by good values. Women are getting played by the system, never told the harsh truths, lied to nonstop for their money and they enjoy it. I get it, everyone wants to sleep with these young women and noone gives them reality checks, not even their fathers and mothers. I honestly wouldn´t blame young women as much as I would blame the Gen X and Boomer mothers. I´ve seen waaay too many marriages broken up by these mothers to believe anyone else is at fault. The then lack of father figures for both young men and young women is devastating. Social Media and porn are a clear issues, sure, but that goes for both sexes. In many parts of the world women just want too much before pregnancy, that´s not really needed. I think the russian model is optimal, having children early between sometimes 16-18 and 25 before higher education. It makes much more sense in terms of the fertility window and also for education and the kids themselves. The first 3-4 years mothers are just too needed for the children, then after others like grandmother can take over and help, while the mother can then pursue other goals. Basicly a longer civil service insted of military service for men with lifelong benefits. Second and Third children become much easier to raise, with an older sibling around and gathered experience from the first child. Another benefit of having children early is of course much better health outcomes for the children. The numbers of children with disabilities physical and/or mental are exploding here in germany and global...since mothers have delayed their family plans into their late 30´s and early 40´s. Gouvernments in general shy away from proposing any changes toward their populations...especially females it seems. I really think they´re scared of the unforseeable consequences most likely toward voting behavior. It´s really wierd to me how noone dares to offend or reality check young women. I´ve seen it very clear in work environments. Maybe Allegations, psychologcal warfare or the social weaponry of women is so feared that noone wants to be on the receiving end. I can see a slow shift starting though. Young Fathers have an extremely high standing in public, mothers get educated or schooled a lot more. Even online most bs of women gets called out now. I´m slowly even seeing a more cautious and critical approach toward female students and women in the university and work setting at least here in germany. I must say though, the early to mid 20´s of a man nowadays are harsh. The late 20´s or early 30´s are so much better. I´d advise young men to use opportunities such as carnival, traditional or local events to get to know people. Activities in a association/club/group are perfect to learn and get to know others.

While likely not sufficient on its own, I think a necessary step for reconciling the aspirations of women with the demands of a family would be to institute 20 hour work weeks. Taking care of children and a home is a full time job, which in previous generations had traditionally been left to the wife, with the husband serving as the breadwinner. As women have entered the workforce there has not been a corresponding decrease in work expected by the husband, meaning that total aggregate time a couple spends working had effectively doubled, leaving no time for homemaking. At a societal level we have allowed the economic engine to double the time it extracts from the population, and while production has increased dramatically, it had come at the cost of our investment in creating future generations.

The German word ''''gesund schrumpfen'''' may Lead us To a healthy size of four billion people . to me that is a positive outlook .

Lee Kwan Yew understood this a long long time ago… and he said he couldn’t solve it. That’s from the seminal genius and greatest statesman of the century. So we are fucked

I think that the decrease in Testosterone levels in men are also responsible for the demographic change. When food and hygiene products pump estrogenics into mens body on a mass scale, we can expect that they will have higher rates of infertility and not have the responsibility required to have children.

I think population collapse and subsequent collapse of civilization will not happen, because societies will respond to new conditions. People adapt to environment. If you lived in 70s and 80s, there was a widespread fear that population explosion would lead to widespread food shortage resulting in calamitous decline in living standard and steep rise in social instability. (See movies like Soylent Green) However, this eventuality did not come to pass because of 2 things: 1. Agriculture changes - consolidation of farming business leading to economy of scale and better exploitation of land; widespread use of fertilizers (Haber-Fritz nitrogen today creates more bio pass than soil bacteria nitrogen fixation today) and pesticides achieving previously unimaginable crop yield; drastic reduction in transportation cost (you can ship 1 lb of stuff from Asia to America for few cents). In summary, a huge boost in food production and distribution was achieved. 2. Culture change. Yes, there is feminism and gender equality in employment. But when you are told constantly that there are too many people in the world, your view eventually changes. I've come to believe that the value of reproduction is not critical, and made forming a family and raising children an optional endeavor in life. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this regard, and probably contributed to the problem discussed in the video. My prediction is that as population starts to decline, there will be a culture shift, and more people will be inspired to have children. Also, it's a safe bet that there will be technological breakthroughs and institutional reforms to help as well. These things take time - it took about half century for population explosion to be corrected. I think it will take similar amount of time for population collapse to be fixed as well.

You missed few remarkable exceptions for the rule and what are their context. I have worked for around 10 years for this solution, I have come to basic one you should check someday. Please let me know how I can contact you and share it.

From an urban planning perspective, I believe that Jane Jacobs described cities best by posing them as places of various levels of complexity, and that cities function as organisms. In this context American suburbia is the equivalent of dissecting each component of said organism and pretending that each component can independently function as a whole, which evidently it cannot. Cities have historically typically had below replacement level of fertility with them only growing due to the constant inflow of rural migrants. However accounting for the high mortality rate I would assume that cities in the past would still have a higher fertility than modern day cities such as Tokyo or NYC. The way to square the circle is create spaces that promote family well being as well as focusing on how these places can function as an actual city not just as disparate nodes of development. I think that the only places that could be said to be built in this way would be the archetypical "Old Town/Mainstreet USA" places, such as the Orange Circle in SoCal. Having places be walkable and built for a human scale as well as understanding that places need to be of multiple uses to promote vibrancy and keep a city alive, does not necessarily mean that all places have to look like Shanghai or Mumbai to be considered well designed.

Have more kids everyone. We can weather the storm 💪

i think the ideology surrounding what love is is extremely flawed today and it could be really helpful if people weren’t so afraid of the consequences of love and relationships. it also isn’t religion and is undeniable. it also encourages collectivism with meaning and care behind it more so like a rural community when done with love. nobody teaches love and not many try to think about it deeply and critically or implement it in their life in a really helpful way. it’s urban and results in more babies. also in the thinking of if people had more love for themselves and all things, which is of course actively fought against by governments.

Hi man, great video as always. Are you familiar with Whatiflathist and do what's your opinion on his work?

Your perspective is feeling quite balanced these days and that truly is excellent. I appreciate the realistic approach. Those of the left and the right must come together on this issue. Human rights will not be scarified and neither will quality of life. This issue is bigger than politics.

The garden city concept is an attempt to combine the best of both city and rural areas. The video author may find it interesting to read up on. They are functionally superior to the sprawling suburb concept.

KaiserBauch v Urban planning KZfaq is the new Kendrick v Drake

Huge thank you for starting to putt the causes of declining birth rates in one video. I am also extremely happy that the future videos will be about potential solutions to this problem. Huge thank you for all this work you put into these videos! :)

27:55 that sounds exactly like remote work!

People until 1960s: we want to spend time with our children at home after work. People in 2024: we want to watch YT videos and Netflix series and play games. 😁

Я полагаю что единственная реальная значимая причина снижения возраста рождения первого ребенка - высокие ожидания населения. За последние 60 лет производительность труда выросла многократно. Однако есть физический барьер в виде КПД передачи энергии. Мы достигли предела развития как высоко развитое общество, которое сжигает топливо и перерабатывает ископаемые материалы. Подобно тому как вода в плотине ГЭС застыла в высшей точке и медленно выбрасывает излишки не изливаясь огромной волной, так и человеческое общество исследует границы этой плотины, не подозревая, что вершина недостижима. Есть два пути выхода: 1) ещё одна кровавая война, которая обнулит надежды на счастливое будущее всех сразу 2) Каждый лично для себя поймет, что хорошего будущего для своих детей не настанет никогда и лучше рожать сейчас. Второй путь доступен не всем и связан со сложным осознанием своего места в мире. Люди же всё чаще предпочитают не делать выбор, и в случае собственной мнительности люди предпочитают закончить свой жизненный путь сейчас. Нет СССР с его коммунистическим будущим. Нет также свободного капиталистического государства с социальными элементами, ведь коррупция забирает плоды труда населения а СМИ внушают ложные идеалы, которые недостижимы. Не могу поверить, что попы и кто-нибудь ещё может повлиять на девушку типа как: "Хей, тебе уже пора рожать, выходи замуж". А она такая: " Ок, да, реально". Я не думаю, что с рождаемостью есть какие-то проблемы. Все дети которые не рождены сейчас, могут быть рождены благодаря развитию медицины позже. Частично именно благодаря развитию медицины происходил рост населения после второй мировой войны. Однако существуют объективные причины почему рожать слишком поздно это вредно. Из-за капитализма есть предел распространения технологий (речь не о пределе развития, а об именно про массовое применение) . Боюсь самые передовые технологии останутся преимуществом богатых стран. Единственный значимый для меня показатель - количество работающих людей к числу пенсионеров. Я думаю, что всеобщая система пенсионных накоплений будет упразднена. Это реально то, что меня пугает.

it's marketing replacing ideas about life.

hello man,i genuinely appreciate your videos as it helps us understanding these topics better. i recommend you analyse Turkey's demographics. It is different than other countries you already did,and it would be a entertaining video,considering an Muslim majority middle eastern country,contrary to classical Christian Europeans (no offense btw.).Have a nice time man,you deserve it

Maybe the Amish or Haredi could move to rural, depopulated, Eastern Europe and farm.

The explanation and solution has to be about incentives lets see how many get mentioned. Literacy is not an incentive. Religion is not an incentive unless it demands fertility which none of the mainstream Religions do. Urbanization is not an incentive. The role of men and women could be an incentive. *sigh* Seriously you have to look at the reasons to what motivates people and not try to explain a Phenomena with correlations you think are relevant. All of this boils down to the Hierarchy of needs. In ye old days why was it good and desired to have many children, regardless of levels of Literacy or any of the other thing you like to talk about. If having children does not fulfill a basic need like one you need to fulfill to survive yourself, why the heck would you have children. In poor uneducated Countries you wont have Institutions that ensure your survival regardless of how many children you have. You need them to ensure you wont die when you can no longer work.

I don’t gain anything in any timeframe by solving this issue. Use your mind, I believe in you.

That was the main form of entertainment and distraction in those days...now we have far more

The higher fertility rate for people in bigger houses is absolutely related to people who have kids deliberately moving to bigger blocks, not because having a bigger house makes you have more kids. My childless friends mostly live in smaller places in the city, and then when they have kids, they move out to the suburbs so the kids can have space to run around. What would even be the point of paying for a huge house and garden if you're just a 30 year old bachelor who lives alone and spends most of their time working/partying/on hobbies, etc?

6:47 - that's naive. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot just cherry-pick good aspects of modernity and reject the rest unless you create a hugely centralized state.

The current job market is detrimental to having kids, too. No responsible parent is going to have 3+ kids in a volatile employement market.