/lit/ - Literature

>>16385520
Forgot to attach some links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OFaZcC0lRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OFaZcC0lRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7bv0ukJITA

These pension plans were written based on the assumption that that local maximum in birth rates c. 1965 would be sustained forever. Obviously this hasn't panned out.

>Why do our leaders promote anti-natalist messaging in the media, then?
They don't promote anti-natalism for its own sake, the actual goal is "women's equality" and reduction in childbearing is just a means towards that end. In the 60s they seem to have thought population control would prevent poverty and (Soviet) communism, ironically the reverse seems to be true.

>>15836986
US is even more liberal and has had declining fertility since its inception. It's not a novel phenomenon of modernity, it's increasing feminism.