(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
(A number of the industrialized countries would already have negative
growth rates, were it not for immigration; a few do anyway.)

And a lot of these don't like it and are trying to reverse the trend, even
if it should come at the expense of reduced productivity...

They're not likely to succeed. The economic pressures to have fewer kids
are major -- in an urbanized, industrialized society, children are a large
net drain on a family's financial resources -- and people with easy access
to effective contraception will mostly opt for small families.

The USA is a urbanized, industrialized society - yet fertility
in the USA is *not falling*. It has been approximately constant -
at approximately the replacement level (2.07 in 2003)
- for at least *three decades*.

It follows that the economic argument given above is *inconclusive* -
and it is easy to see why. It considers only one side of the ledger.
Children represent a financial drain - also work, trouble and
disappointments - and if that were all that mattered,
then people would have no children at all.

Yet they *do* - which proves that the loss in money,
leisure, career opportunities and peace of mind is offset
by some perceived advantages - resulting in some kind of balance.

The balance *may* be reached at a low level, say one
child per family, and some countries are approaching that
( Spain 1.1, Hong Kong 1.2, Italy 1.2, Greece 1.2,
Germany 1.3, Japan 1.3).

But we know for a fact that it can also be reached at the two-plus
(replacement) level, as in the USA.
And if so, why not three or four or six or twelve?
It all depends on the prevailing values, and these can change.

I agree that the depopulation tide cannot turn soon, simply
because there is too much cultural momentum - but not because of any
economic determinism. If the tide does not turn at all, then
mankind will go extinct, not with a bang but a whimper...