April 4th, 2013
Don’t tell the environmental left and Alexandra Paul, but even Democrats are making noises about how fertility rates are important for America’s economy. Here’s Bob Fertig in a call-to-action email from Democrats.com arguing for a national program of paid maternity leave:
Twenty years ago, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the United States took a major step toward becoming a more family friendly nation.
But the FMLA was only meant to be a first step. The sad reality is 40% of workers aren’t covered by the FMLA, millions can’t afford to take unpaid leave and the United States is one of four countries that doesn’t provide paid maternity leave. . . .
More lawmakers are recognizing that family friendly policies are essential to families’ economic security as well as the success of businesses and our nation’s economy.
As I’ve said before, the politics of pro-natalism are really open to both parties, because it’s more populist than ideological. And judging by the chasm between ideal and achieved fertility in America, there may be a lot of votes there.
-
You do not place any blame on the medical profession. Many women would have loved to have children if it were not for their fertility being impaired by DES, the Pill, IUDs, and the extremely high rate of caesarean sections. Yes caesarean section delivery leaves scar tissue in the uterus which can cause miscarriages, ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, and placenta accreta, thereby cutting the number of children a woman can have especially if her first delivery was surgical. Ob/gyns have made pregnancy and delivery a disease model and women are treated as if they are sick. Because of the drop in the birth rate after the babyboom and the increase in malpractice, doctors have gone to a model of pregnancy that is expensive but not healthy. Our infant mortality rate in the US is an embarassment. At least the Japanese have improved their IMR. The American model is expensive and embarassing.
-
I bought and read your book. Its quite good.
In it, you describe any “pro-natal” initiative as being necessarily multi-generational in duration for it to be effective. Assuming 25 years per generation, this means a minimum of 50 years before it can be assured of any success. We’re talking 2060 to 2070 time frame here.
Is it not likely that biotechnology will come up with a cure for aging, and effective human immortality by this time?
Efforts such as SENS (strategically engineered negligible senescence) , genetically engineered stem cell rejuvenation, and synthetic biology are all being pursued by private parties at this time. It seems to me that the issue of declining populations and reduced productivity are more likely to be solved by biotechnological means than by political efforts to get more people to have kids.
Any thoughts?
Mustafa Sabuwala April 8, 2013 at 1:55 am
Just wanted to highlight the Singapore fairy tales. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ed58ed34-750c-11e2-a9f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2PqdJ0dev
Has created a bit of a furore in normally placid Singapore. No larger point but it’s really hard to make people have babies. Singapore is running the entire gamut from cash handouts to shaming, hasnt work till yet.