And all the others are trending down strongly and will soon also be below replacement level
The UAE and Qatar figures will be a lot higher than those stats for the local Emirati and Qatari populations, are distorted by a lot of temporary immigrant single women who are either young and unmarried, or may have had children in other countries such as India or Philippines.
I’ve seen four children per woman given as an average for Emiratis, which sounds about right.
Not for some years.
According to official UAE figures the TFR for Emirati women is 3.1 in 2022, down from 3.7 in 2015.
The collapse in fertility feels like a part of something bigger. Humanity is exiting stage left because…
Modern gods are no replacement for actual God? I'm not particularly religious but I have always noted that my atheist friends are slightly more miserable than religious or agnostic ones. There's also a lot more childlessness among them than the rest which I think adds to their misery, children, despite the effort, have brought so much joy to my life and to my wife's.
I always wonder what process goes through someone's head that they rule out the idea of God. The universe is such a vast place, filled with infinite wonders, for me, a tiny speck of dust in that great cosmos to say - "I know for a fact that there's nothing out there in this entire universe that could be God" feels completely arrogant and I think that's always been my issue with atheists and I also think that lack of, for better or worse, creativity in their minds makes them dull people.
That’s a caricature, though, isn’t it ?
“Know for a fact” just isn’t an accurate representation of most non believers - and is rather more descriptive of those who believe. The reality is more that those who don’t believe have observed the irrationality of those that do. We always used the idea of god to explain the stuff we can’t. As knowledge has expanded, the religious domain has shrunk - and religion either has to embrace active irrationality (I’m sure you can think of plenty such examples), or dilute its role in our lives.
As Ratters notes, for most people there isn’t a bright line between atheism and agnosticism - and probably less so than there’s a bright line between belief and non belief.
The collapse in fertility feels like a part of something bigger. Humanity is exiting stage left because…
Modern gods are no replacement for actual God? I'm not particularly religious but I have always noted that my atheist friends are slightly more miserable than religious or agnostic ones. There's also a lot more childlessness among them than the rest which I think adds to their misery, children, despite the effort, have brought so much joy to my life and to my wife's.
I always wonder what process goes through someone's head that they rule out the idea of God. The universe is such a vast place, filled with infinite wonders, for me, a tiny speck of dust in that great cosmos to say - "I know for a fact that there's nothing out there in this entire universe that could be God" feels completely arrogant and I think that's always been my issue with atheists and I also think that lack of, for better or worse, creativity in their minds makes them dull people.
I'm atheist, very happy and had two children by the age of 33, just to provide some counterbalance. My wife is similarly atheist.
Also atheism is not about knowing for a fact nothing in the universe that could be considered God. That is a misrepresentation. It means my belief is that is overwhelmingly the most likely outcome. In a similar way someone can be religious but not know that God exists as a fact. You don't call every religious person who admits there is a 0.01% change they are wrong agnostic, not should you with atheists.
Though I'd quibble with equating 'religious' and 'believing in God'.
There there religions which have no gods. But there are also many people who belong to a religion whose theology has a god or gods, for whom the belief in god(s) or not isn't a very important part of their religion.
The collapse in fertility feels like a part of something bigger. Humanity is exiting stage left because…
Modern gods are no replacement for actual God? I'm not particularly religious but I have always noted that my atheist friends are slightly more miserable than religious or agnostic ones. There's also a lot more childlessness among them than the rest which I think adds to their misery, children, despite the effort, have brought so much joy to my life and to my wife's.
I always wonder what process goes through someone's head that they rule out the idea of God. The universe is such a vast place, filled with infinite wonders, for me, a tiny speck of dust in that great cosmos to say - "I know for a fact that there's nothing out there in this entire universe that could be God" feels completely arrogant and I think that's always been my issue with atheists and I also think that lack of, for better or worse, creativity in their minds makes them dull people.
That’s a caricature, though, isn’t it ?
“Know for a fact” just isn’t an accurate representation of most non believers - and is rather more descriptive of those who believe. The reality is more that those who don’t believe have observed the irrationality of those that do. We always used the idea of god to explain the stuff we can’t. As knowledge has expanded, the religious domain has shrunk - and religion either has to embrace active irrationality (I’m sure you can think of plenty such examples), or dilute its role in our lives.
As Ratters notes, for most people there isn’t a bright line between atheism and agnosticism - and probably less so than there’s a bright line between belief and non belief.
I don't agree, I think it's about open mindedness vs closed mindedness. My experiences with atheists has generally been one of narrow and closed minds, not just about religion but about a lot of contentious subjects. For example I'd be willing to bet that there was a huge crossover between atheism and denial of the COVID lab leak theory. Look across at the US right now, it's the largely atheist left that is going on purges and cancelling people they disagree with, not the right.
That closed mindedness of atheism, IMO, makes people more miserable and less amenable to having large families. Again, I'm not particularly religious but I would never presume to close my mind to the idea of God or that people have soul. I think atheism has made people meaner and less open which makes them more selfish and hedonistic, ultimately weighing down on the birthrate.
All football matches in Wales cancelled tomorrow due to the storm
That's probably due to still having a woke administration in Cardiff Bay.
Garden furniture to be moved into the sheds. Should I strap the bee hives down and move the cars to the other end of the drive away from the house?
I assume your being light hearted but there is a point about weather warnings. Every time you see people trapped in snow after they ignored the warnings you have to have a heart of stone not to laugh (or something).
No I wasn't ( other than the Cardiff Bay bit) I am in the eye of the storm. I have strapped down the Warre hive and put paving slabs on to the Nationals. The cars have been moved from the house and there is an enormous Christmas tree planted decades ago on the paddock in front of my house blowing merrily in the gale force winds.
I am on high ground half a mile from the sea and in the eye of the storm. So far I have lost some trellis work which has been shredded and the felt off a shed roof ( I wonder what I will be doing today?)
All football matches in Wales cancelled tomorrow due to the storm
That's probably due to still having a woke administration in Cardiff Bay.
Garden furniture to be moved into the sheds. Should I strap the bee hives down and move the cars to the other end of the drive away from the house?
To be honest it's not really a joking matter when the warnings are danger to life and keep away from the coast and the sea
90 mph winds are seriously dangerous
I hope your property is surviving the storm. My roof tiles are rattling now. I've never experienced anything like it, and it is always windy where I am.
We never had this kind of weather under a Conservative administration.
The collapse in fertility feels like a part of something bigger. Humanity is exiting stage left because…
Modern gods are no replacement for actual God? I'm not particularly religious but I have always noted that my atheist friends are slightly more miserable than religious or agnostic ones. There's also a lot more childlessness among them than the rest which I think adds to their misery, children, despite the effort, have brought so much joy to my life and to my wife's.
I always wonder what process goes through someone's head that they rule out the idea of God. The universe is such a vast place, filled with infinite wonders, for me, a tiny speck of dust in that great cosmos to say - "I know for a fact that there's nothing out there in this entire universe that could be God" feels completely arrogant and I think that's always been my issue with atheists and I also think that lack of, for better or worse, creativity in their minds makes them dull people.
Nah.
If delusion is the route to happiness, I'd still not recommend it.
The biggest argument against religious belief is that it is so obviously a human construct - i.e. made up.
The collapse in fertility feels like a part of something bigger. Humanity is exiting stage left because…
Modern gods are no replacement for actual God? I'm not particularly religious but I have always noted that my atheist friends are slightly more miserable than religious or agnostic ones. There's also a lot more childlessness among them than the rest which I think adds to their misery, children, despite the effort, have brought so much joy to my life and to my wife's.
I always wonder what process goes through someone's head that they rule out the idea of God. The universe is such a vast place, filled with infinite wonders, for me, a tiny speck of dust in that great cosmos to say - "I know for a fact that there's nothing out there in this entire universe that could be God" feels completely arrogant and I think that's always been my issue with atheists and I also think that lack of, for better or worse, creativity in their minds makes them dull people.
That’s a caricature, though, isn’t it ?
“Know for a fact” just isn’t an accurate representation of most non believers - and is rather more descriptive of those who believe. The reality is more that those who don’t believe have observed the irrationality of those that do. We always used the idea of god to explain the stuff we can’t. As knowledge has expanded, the religious domain has shrunk - and religion either has to embrace active irrationality (I’m sure you can think of plenty such examples), or dilute its role in our lives.
As Ratters notes, for most people there isn’t a bright line between atheism and agnosticism - and probably less so than there’s a bright line between belief and non belief.
I don't agree, I think it's about open mindedness vs closed mindedness. My experiences with atheists has generally been one of narrow and closed minds, not just about religion but about a lot of contentious subjects. For example I'd be willing to bet that there was a huge crossover between atheism and denial of the COVID lab leak theory. Look across at the US right now, it's the largely atheist left that is going on purges and cancelling people they disagree with, not the right.
That closed mindedness of atheism, IMO, makes people more miserable and less amenable to having large families. Again, I'm not particularly religious but I would never presume to close my mind to the idea of God or that people have soul. I think atheism has made people meaner and less open which makes them more selfish and hedonistic, ultimately weighing down on the birthrate.
The collapse in fertility feels like a part of something bigger. Humanity is exiting stage left because…
Modern gods are no replacement for actual God? I'm not particularly religious but I have always noted that my atheist friends are slightly more miserable than religious or agnostic ones. There's also a lot more childlessness among them than the rest which I think adds to their misery, children, despite the effort, have brought so much joy to my life and to my wife's.
I always wonder what process goes through someone's head that they rule out the idea of God. The universe is such a vast place, filled with infinite wonders, for me, a tiny speck of dust in that great cosmos to say - "I know for a fact that there's nothing out there in this entire universe that could be God" feels completely arrogant and I think that's always been my issue with atheists and I also think that lack of, for better or worse, creativity in their minds makes them dull people.
Gosh, that's deep for 8am on a Saturday morning. 🙏
Has anywhere successfully increased their birthrate in a meaningful and sustained way with political measures?
Genuine question. I know many places are trying to do it, but if ones like China and South Korea are an indication it often does not work.
I think the answer to your question is no. The nearest that I can find is Israel.
In 1992 the fertility rate in Israel had declined to 2.7, but the most recent figure is 2.89 (for 2022). This increase is far too small to stabilise the population in most of the countries where the fertility rate is below replacement level, but it is an increase, and Israel's fertility rate is notably above the replacement level.
One large part of it is that ultra-orthodox women have an average of 6.6 children each, but secular women still have an average of 2.0, well above rates in other developed countries. A person might reasonably argue that humanity will die out unless it can find its religious belief again. Which would be an uncomfortable conclusion for an atheist father of one to come to.
Except that even quite religious countries are seeing birth rate declines
Iran, Malaysia, etc. All of Latin America
Religion is part of the explanation but there is much more at work
Some decades ago, when I studied demography at Cambridge, the academics’ favoured theory was that it mostly came down to economics. If having an extra child was a net economic benefit to the parents (as was often the case, for example, in pre-mechanisation farming communities) then they would have more children, and if it was a net economic cost, they wouldn’t.
I remember ploughing through lots of historical examples and recall a particular article that mostly consisted of formulae.
Whether this is still the favoured theory, I don’t know, but when you look at the costs that many parents take on my having a child in the modern world - from childcare through student fees and eventually helping them onto the housing market - perhaps it isn’t surprising that they are going out of fashion?
Children are always going to be a net economic cost in a country like Britain. You plough huge amounts of time and money into their upbringing and then when they're an adult they move to a different part of the country and you never see them again. I think people only have children at all because of a [perhaps irrational] sense that they provide a purpose to one's life. This sense is one that is generally reinforced by religions, and you can see why a sense of national purpose might be part of the higher fertility rate in Israel - it's literally the difference between Israel continuing to exist or not.
I think one of the factors holding the fertility rate down in a country like Britain is the strong cultural censure against parents who aren't doing it right. So people delay having children until they are "ready" whatever they have decided that means (owning their own home, finding a responsible and willing partner, getting on in their career, seeing the world first). And, all too often, they are not ready until their body isn't, and they either don't have children at all, or have fewer than they thought they would have.
So the cost comes into it, in the sense that people will delay having a child until they think they can afford one, but I don't think anyone regards a child as a net economic benefit in a country like Britain.
The collapse in fertility feels like a part of something bigger. Humanity is exiting stage left because…
Modern gods are no replacement for actual God? I'm not particularly religious but I have always noted that my atheist friends are slightly more miserable than religious or agnostic ones. There's also a lot more childlessness among them than the rest which I think adds to their misery, children, despite the effort, have brought so much joy to my life and to my wife's.
I always wonder what process goes through someone's head that they rule out the idea of God. The universe is such a vast place, filled with infinite wonders, for me, a tiny speck of dust in that great cosmos to say - "I know for a fact that there's nothing out there in this entire universe that could be God" feels completely arrogant and I think that's always been my issue with atheists and I also think that lack of, for better or worse, creativity in their minds makes them dull people.
That’s a caricature, though, isn’t it ?
“Know for a fact” just isn’t an accurate representation of most non believers - and is rather more descriptive of those who believe. The reality is more that those who don’t believe have observed the irrationality of those that do. We always used the idea of god to explain the stuff we can’t. As knowledge has expanded, the religious domain has shrunk - and religion either has to embrace active irrationality (I’m sure you can think of plenty such examples), or dilute its role in our lives.
As Ratters notes, for most people there isn’t a bright line between atheism and agnosticism - and probably less so than there’s a bright line between belief and non belief.
I don't agree, I think it's about open mindedness vs closed mindedness. My experiences with atheists has generally been one of narrow and closed minds, not just about religion but about a lot of contentious subjects. For example I'd be willing to bet that there was a huge crossover between atheism and denial of the COVID lab leak theory. Look across at the US right now, it's the largely atheist left that is going on purges and cancelling people they disagree with, not the right.
That closed mindedness of atheism, IMO, makes people more miserable and less amenable to having large families. Again, I'm not particularly religious but I would never presume to close my mind to the idea of God or that people have soul. I think atheism has made people meaner and less open which makes them more selfish and hedonistic, ultimately weighing down on the birthrate.
Alexa, show me a post about lacking self-awareness.
Has anywhere successfully increased their birthrate in a meaningful and sustained way with political measures?
Genuine question. I know many places are trying to do it, but if ones like China and South Korea are an indication it often does not work.
Its easy to do, look at footballers, married & children by 25-30. The UK's declining opportunity and increasing precarity does not incentivise children.
And yet most places who have tried to do it have failed. Assuming we cannot turn everyone into a professional footballer, what else might be tried when tax breaks and incentives seem to cause temporary blips only?
I would provide baby bonuses to dating websites.
At the moment their incentives are all wrong - if they find you a great match that you stay together with for life then they've lost a customer. Provide them with the incentive to find people lifelong partners they want to start a family with, and then, if anyone can find a way to increase the birth rate, they will.
The problem is then they'd just concentrate on men who just want to impregnate women.
We really need men to change their attitudes: we are not going back to the bad old days when men ruled the family with an iron fist; where there was no contraception, and abortions were available but very dangerous (*). However much some may want that. So men need to man up and take their responsibilities seriously.
(*) Yes, they were. Ban abortion, and you will get the back-street abortionist popping up again, and many women dying.
Men, in most cases, cannot force a woman to become pregnant, or to carry a pregnancy to term, against her will. So I think you are wrong. It is certainly true that there are ways in which it could be distorted, but my flippant suggestion does make a serious point.
This is not simply a question of what the government can do for potential parents. There are third parties, such as employers, dating websites, etc, who have an influence on this and whose current incentives are hostile to people having children.
There seem to be quite a few reports floating about of a stitch-up between Putin and Turkey, with him potentially having known about their plans for months.
If so, maybe the Russians have decided to cut a deal with Turkey, to retain influence through them in thd Middle East.
If Damascus falls Erdogan won't be able to control the jihadi Militants who will take over Syria, it would soon become a haven nation for terrorists plotting global jihad
I think the new government would be preoccupied by internal affairs, and not interested in us.
It would be a big defeat for Putin and Iran though, and they are our geopolitical enemies at the moment.
The new government would be dominated by former Al Qaeda sympathisers motivated by jihad above all
You do talk some utter tosh on occasion.
Assad is not only a grotesquely brutal dictator, he’s also an incompetent unable even to keep the order his similarly brutal father managed.
Under his rule a fifth of the country’s population became refugees overseas; another fifth at least internally displaced; hundreds of thousands died - and Syria hosted an actual islamic terrorist state of precisely the kind you fear.
And no one, least of all yourself, really knows who might dominate whatever government succeeds him. It’s equally likely to be an improvement as it is something worse. And it’s going to happen whatever your opinion.
No it is reality. Assad kept Syria from falling to ISIS. We know the rebels are dominated by a group on the US terrorist list linked to Al Qaeda.
The brutal reality in the Muslim Middle East is the choice now is largely between ruthless dictator or a nation dominated by Islamic militancy, with a handful of exceptions like Jordan. See the removal of Gaddafi or Saddam and the aftermath
Not to try and excuse any of the various nutters fighting for control - but Assad and the whole Syrian regime is on the US terrorist list. Maybe Assad is the least bad nutter. But pick your poison.
Is Assad sending and sponsoring terrorists in London and other western streets? No. The AQ linked terrorists if they take over Syria ultimately will
Why would a *managed* decline in population be bad? Yes, it somewhat upends existing systems, and the mirage of economic growth would be harder to sustain. But if people end up happier, why would a gentle decline in population be bad?
(You also need to factor in the consequences of an unmanaged decline, forcing women to have more kids (the @HYUFS approach), and importing immigrants as alternatives.)
I think a gentle decline in population would be a good thing, at least for a while. It would take the pressure off land, and make it easier to reserve land for other species on the planet.
However, I have two main concerns. The first is that I believe that people are generally a good thing. If you have more people you have more people who are capable of inventing and creating, and that makes the world a richer place for everyone. Obviously I sometimes appreciate a landscape empty of people, but most of the things that give me pleasure are human-created things - music, literature, comedy, art. If there are fewer people then there's less culture to enjoy, and less science to materially improve our lives. So, to a fairly large extent, a world with five billion people is five times better than a world with one billion people.
Secondly, as discussed, it is proving difficult for governments to increase the fertility rate above replacement level. If it is hard now, only a few decades after the fertility rate slipped below replacement level, how much harder will it be in one or two hundred years, once the cultural norm of a society with not enough children to sustain itself has become entrenched in myriad different ways about how we live, and cultural expectations and beliefs. It's possible that the world could find itself trapped in a spiral of declining populations and, eventually, humanity cease to exist. Not because of some huge disaster, but because we'd created a society that was sufficiently hostile to having children that people didn't, and we just disappeared.
Has anywhere successfully increased their birthrate in a meaningful and sustained way with political measures?
Genuine question. I know many places are trying to do it, but if ones like China and South Korea are an indication it often does not work.
Its easy to do, look at footballers, married & children by 25-30. The UK's declining opportunity and increasing precarity does not incentivise children.
And yet most places who have tried to do it have failed. Assuming we cannot turn everyone into a professional footballer, what else might be tried when tax breaks and incentives seem to cause temporary blips only?
I would provide baby bonuses to dating websites.
At the moment their incentives are all wrong - if they find you a great match that you stay together with for life then they've lost a customer. Provide them with the incentive to find people lifelong partners they want to start a family with, and then, if anyone can find a way to increase the birth rate, they will.
The problem is then they'd just concentrate on men who just want to impregnate women.
We really need men to change their attitudes: we are not going back to the bad old days when men ruled the family with an iron fist; where there was no contraception, and abortions were available but very dangerous (*). However much some may want that. So men need to man up and take their responsibilities seriously.
(*) Yes, they were. Ban abortion, and you will get the back-street abortionist popping up again, and many women dying.
Men, in most cases, cannot force a woman to become pregnant, or to carry a pregnancy to term, against her will. So I think you are wrong. It is certainly true that there are ways in which it could be distorted, but my flippant suggestion does make a serious point.
This is not simply a question of what the government can do for potential parents. There are third parties, such as employers, dating websites, etc, who have an influence on this and whose current incentives are hostile to people having children.
"Men, in most cases, cannot force a woman to become pregnant, or to carry a pregnancy to term, against her will. "
History shows that is far from the case. In modern times, the pill and abortion prevents them. But guess what many people are trying to restrict? That's it; they want to regress back to the time where women have f-all choice but to fall pregnant.
Has anywhere successfully increased their birthrate in a meaningful and sustained way with political measures?
Genuine question. I know many places are trying to do it, but if ones like China and South Korea are an indication it often does not work.
Its easy to do, look at footballers, married & children by 25-30. The UK's declining opportunity and increasing precarity does not incentivise children.
And yet most places who have tried to do it have failed. Assuming we cannot turn everyone into a professional footballer, what else might be tried when tax breaks and incentives seem to cause temporary blips only?
I would provide baby bonuses to dating websites.
At the moment their incentives are all wrong - if they find you a great match that you stay together with for life then they've lost a customer. Provide them with the incentive to find people lifelong partners they want to start a family with, and then, if anyone can find a way to increase the birth rate, they will.
The problem is then they'd just concentrate on men who just want to impregnate women.
We really need men to change their attitudes: we are not going back to the bad old days when men ruled the family with an iron fist; where there was no contraception, and abortions were available but very dangerous (*). However much some may want that. So men need to man up and take their responsibilities seriously.
(*) Yes, they were. Ban abortion, and you will get the back-street abortionist popping up again, and many women dying.
Men, in most cases, cannot force a woman to become pregnant, or to carry a pregnancy to term, against her will. So I think you are wrong. It is certainly true that there are ways in which it could be distorted, but my flippant suggestion does make a serious point.
This is not simply a question of what the government can do for potential parents. There are third parties, such as employers, dating websites, etc, who have an influence on this and whose current incentives are hostile to people having children.
"Men, in most cases, cannot force a woman to become pregnant, or to carry a pregnancy to term, against her will. "
History shows that is far from the case. In modern times, the pill and abortion prevents them. But guess what many people are trying to restrict? That's it; they want to regress back to the time where women have f-all choice but to fall pregnant.
That's not really the context for my idea of a baby bonus for dating websites.
And all the others are trending down strongly and will soon also be below replacement level
The UAE and Qatar figures will be a lot higher than those stats for the local Emirati and Qatari populations, are distorted by a lot of temporary immigrant single women who are either young and unmarried, or may have had children in other countries such as India or Philippines.
I’ve seen four children per woman given as an average for Emiratis, which sounds about right.
Not for some years.
According to official UAE figures the TFR for Emirati women is 3.1 in 2022, down from 3.7 in 2015.
This is broadly the same decline seen in most other countries, but a little further upstream.
Good spot, interesting to see that countries that rapidly increase their populations are still not immune from the trend.
I suspect it’s mostly to do with a change in attitude towards women’s education, with many more now graduating with advanced degrees and going into the professional workplace.
Comments
According to official UAE figures the TFR for Emirati women is 3.1 in 2022, down from 3.7 in 2015.
https://uaestat.fcsc.gov.ae/vis?lc=en&fs[0]=FCSC - Statistical Hierarchy,0|Fertility#VTS_FT#&pg=0&fc=FCSC - Statistical Hierarchy&snb=1&df[ds]=FCSC-RDS&df[id]=DF_FERT&df[ag]=FCSA&df[vs]=1.3.0&pd=2015,&dq=A.....&ly[rw]=TIME_PERIOD&ly[cl]=MEASURE&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false
This is broadly the same decline seen in most other countries, but a little further upstream.
“Know for a fact” just isn’t an accurate representation of most non believers - and is rather more descriptive of those who believe.
The reality is more that those who don’t believe have observed the irrationality of those that do. We always used the idea of god to explain the stuff we can’t. As knowledge has expanded, the religious domain has shrunk - and religion either has to embrace active irrationality (I’m sure you can think of plenty such examples), or dilute its role in our lives.
As Ratters notes, for most people there isn’t a bright line between atheism and agnosticism - and probably less so than there’s a bright line between belief and non belief.
There there religions which have no gods. But there are also many people who belong to a religion whose theology has a god or gods, for whom the belief in god(s) or not isn't a very important part of their religion.
That closed mindedness of atheism, IMO, makes people more miserable and less amenable to having large families. Again, I'm not particularly religious but I would never presume to close my mind to the idea of God or that people have soul. I think atheism has made people meaner and less open which makes them more selfish and hedonistic, ultimately weighing down on the birthrate.
I am on high ground half a mile from the sea and in the eye of the storm. So far I have lost some trellis work which has been shredded and the felt off a shed roof ( I wonder what I will be doing today?)
I hope your property is surviving the storm. My roof tiles are rattling now. I've never experienced anything like it, and it is always windy where I am.
We never had this kind of weather under a Conservative administration.
If delusion is the route to happiness, I'd still not recommend it.
The biggest argument against religious belief is that it is so obviously a human construct - i.e. made up.
NEW THREAD
Good morning PB. 👍
I think one of the factors holding the fertility rate down in a country like Britain is the strong cultural censure against parents who aren't doing it right. So people delay having children until they are "ready" whatever they have decided that means (owning their own home, finding a responsible and willing partner, getting on in their career, seeing the world first). And, all too often, they are not ready until their body isn't, and they either don't have children at all, or have fewer than they thought they would have.
So the cost comes into it, in the sense that people will delay having a child until they think they can afford one, but I don't think anyone regards a child as a net economic benefit in a country like Britain.
This is not simply a question of what the government can do for potential parents. There are third parties, such as employers, dating websites, etc, who have an influence on this and whose current incentives are hostile to people having children.
However, I have two main concerns. The first is that I believe that people are generally a good thing. If you have more people you have more people who are capable of inventing and creating, and that makes the world a richer place for everyone. Obviously I sometimes appreciate a landscape empty of people, but most of the things that give me pleasure are human-created things - music, literature, comedy, art. If there are fewer people then there's less culture to enjoy, and less science to materially improve our lives. So, to a fairly large extent, a world with five billion people is five times better than a world with one billion people.
Secondly, as discussed, it is proving difficult for governments to increase the fertility rate above replacement level. If it is hard now, only a few decades after the fertility rate slipped below replacement level, how much harder will it be in one or two hundred years, once the cultural norm of a society with not enough children to sustain itself has become entrenched in myriad different ways about how we live, and cultural expectations and beliefs. It's possible that the world could find itself trapped in a spiral of declining populations and, eventually, humanity cease to exist. Not because of some huge disaster, but because we'd created a society that was sufficiently hostile to having children that people didn't, and we just disappeared.
History shows that is far from the case. In modern times, the pill and abortion prevents them. But guess what many people are trying to restrict? That's it; they want to regress back to the time where women have f-all choice but to fall pregnant.
I suspect it’s mostly to do with a change in attitude towards women’s education, with many more now graduating with advanced degrees and going into the professional workplace.