Societal Duty to have Children Attitude by Country

I find it extremely sad that so many hamlets and villages in my valley will soon be abandoned, but I understand the reasons why Italy has been for decades and decades, from right after the war, really, a one child country, as I see why living in those hamlets is completely infeasible.

The other problem related to fertility, which I see or hear about every day here in the U.S. is that the wrong people are having children.

All of that said, I had two, and that was plenty. I didn't have the nerves or patience to mother four children, or even three, in the modern world with all its pitfalls, and I did have a career I cared about. Then, now that they're grown-up I sometimes wonder whether I should have brought children into this world at all. I love them dearly, and they me, but the world is falling apart in front of my eyes. It was difficult enough trying to shield them from the toxicity of modern society, and I wasn't completely successful. If they have children, it will be impossible for them.

We currently have one, but will eventually endeavor for a second one. However, both me an my wife work professional careers. Moreover, my parents still work, and her parents live abroad, so we don't have a lot of help. Nevertheless, I feel we will reach our full potential as a family unit with two children. I think it is ideal for rearing children, to give them the appropriate amount of attention, as well as dividing up their inheritance once we pass on, in addition to providing them financial support. I grew up in a family of four, my parents did the best they could for us, but they also had my grand parents on both sides who were retired, or stay-at-home wives, in addition to young aunts and uncles that helped.

@Real expert,

I don't think it is feasible, or responsible for people to have a lot of children if they can't afford it, regardless of tradition. Society needs to get smarter, not bigger; it should in fact be smaller. Like I said prior, you will not need cheap labor from the 3rd world to come in mass to maintain capitalism. Because the reduction of cost and increase of productivity due to the pending AI/Robot revolution, it will eliminate the need for masses of people. It may even eliminate the need for massive industrial centers, and crowded cities, since everything can be produced locally.

I think that all societies need a servile component, just as the great empires of the past needed slaves/helots/thralls to operate. Our globalized modern empires operate off of the de facto slavery in the 3rd world, where poor people work in appalling conditions in sweat shops.

Once we have de facto AI/Robot slavery, and after the natural order of things play out, and the human population contracts to an appropriate size; we could have a proper polity ruled by an informed citizenry.

Perhaps if we are able to terraform other planets, the stress of population grow would be alleviated however. So the need for populations contracting may not be necessary for the survival of the planet.

I'm actually going to visit Japan and South Korea this summer.

From what I understand, ChatGPT is expected to be unbanned with a version more satisfactory to the Italian government in terms of data breach prevention and such.
That's understandable.
Italy should endeavor to solve the labor shortage with robotization, and maintain a population it can support while greatly reducing immigration. Imo

The need for population expansion for capitalist societies can be eliminated by the cost effectiveness and efficiency of AI/robotization.
Even if the population shrinks slightly, the country is maintained and equipped for the future.
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 3960 times.