The nation gets smaller and older. There will not even be enough people to take care of the elderly, much less to pay their pension. And limited or no workers.
But we know how to increase the population. The western world did that experiment from the late 1930s to the late 1960s. We call it the Baby Boom. It's worth looking at how those societies differed from today's.
I'd suggest that what is needed is to ensure that young people, men especially, have enough social and financial standing to be able to start a family within, say 10-15 years of puberty when they are most fertile.
My "dream explanation" of the baby boom started as solders on leave. They had to go back to very dangerous circumstances soon, and so those 30 days at home were every night filled with sex. Then winning the war and devastating the rest of the world, there was a great US prosperity and full employment. So men had every reason, and the means to build the country they had been defending with children.
You suggest that men should be given high social and financial standing. Isn't that the problem of the ages. Perhaps society doesn't need permanent workers anymore, it's enough the gig economy to skate by, which isn't regular enough to risk long-term expenses.
Remember that demographic decline is not just a Western problem. It is happening even more in China, which is not known for its gig economy. I suspect that much of the problem stems from technological societies locking their adolescents into full-time education until well past the point that family raising seems to be the natural thing to do.
This, paradoxically, leaves such technology-based societies needing young, enquiring minds to keep developing technology while also needing young, fecund bodies to ensure a future society.
But we know how to increase the population. The western world did that experiment from the late 1930s to the late 1960s. We call it the Baby Boom. It's worth looking at how those societies differed from today's.
I'd suggest that what is needed is to ensure that young people, men especially, have enough social and financial standing to be able to start a family within, say 10-15 years of puberty when they are most fertile.
My "dream explanation" of the baby boom started as solders on leave. They had to go back to very dangerous circumstances soon, and so those 30 days at home were every night filled with sex. Then winning the war and devastating the rest of the world, there was a great US prosperity and full employment. So men had every reason, and the means to build the country they had been defending with children.
You suggest that men should be given high social and financial standing. Isn't that the problem of the ages. Perhaps society doesn't need permanent workers anymore, it's enough the gig economy to skate by, which isn't regular enough to risk long-term expenses.
.
Remember that demographic decline is not just a Western problem. It is happening even more in China, which is not known for its gig economy. I suspect that much of the problem stems from technological societies locking their adolescents into full-time education until well past the point that family raising seems to be the natural thing to do.
This, paradoxically, leaves such technology-based societies needing young, enquiring minds to keep developing technology while also needing young, fecund bodies to ensure a future society.