The Population Gap - Markets are killing us?

[Shimbiris]

It's kinda funny reading the comments section and seeing all the people in there droning on about their own agendas rather than actually watching the documentary. The research in this film lays out something genuinely shocking around the 40-minute mark: birth-rates aren’t collapsing because parents are having fewer children. In country after country (Japan, Italy, Germany, South Korea etc.) the people who do become parents still average roughly the same family size as in the 1970s at about 2-2.5 or so kids per mother which is ironically the "replacement" range economists are always going on about. What’s changed is the share of people who never have children at all. An explosion in childless people, not shrinking family size among parents is what’s driving global fertility down.

And what’s even more interesting is that these spikes in childlessness line up with major economic shocks: the 1970s oil crisis, the Asian financial crisis, the 2008 crash. Each time, huge numbers of people get financially wrecked or spooked, decide to “wait,” and end up pushing family formation past the biologically easy window. By the time they feel “ready”, it’s too late. This basically implies that a large portion of childless adults are not childless by choice at all; they intended to have kids, but economic insecurity and postponement boxed them out. And biology, especially for women, doesn’t care about recessions or recovery cycles.

This lines up well with the survey statistics they share (most people wanting babies) and what I’ve seen in my own lived experience. I’ve been on dating apps here in New England and the UAE, and being a data nerd, I casually tracked how many women had “Don’t want kids” in their profiles. It was small; maybe like 1 in 10 or so. Across ethnic groups and both countries most women still wanted children, as far as I could see. So all this loud online doomer talk about “nobody wants kids anymore” never made sense to me, especially when it didn't seem to hold true even in a liberal bastion like New England. Yes, dating apps have selection bias as they attract people actively seeking companionship, but they’re also where a large chunk of young adults now meet partners, including religious folks, so the signal isn’t meaningless in my humble opinion. Plus, my IRL experience was the same; I admit it's entirely anecdotal and poor form but I just don't tend to meet many people who say they don't want children. At my workplace alone I think I met two people in like 20 or more?

Seeing this documentary finally put the pieces together for me. It’s not that society is suddenly full of child-hating pessimists or that “careerism” has made an entire generation sterile-by-choice. That crowd is just louder online than they are numerous, in my humble opinion. Hilariously, even in this documentary they let that sort of crowd talk a lot despite the statistical realities on display. Most modern people do want children. What’s killing their chances isn’t ideology; it’s the constant economic shocks, instability, and delayed adulthood baked into our modern system. In other words, the bankers did it. Kkkkkkkkkk.


@Idilinaa @Mohamedamiin120 @Thegoodshepherd

 

[Mohamedamiin120]

I have not watched this documentary, nor have I really engaged with capitalist explanations for the decline of the birth rate due to how outlandish they are most of the time.

But from your explanation of it, it is (at least on the surface) pretty analogous with socialist explanations of the phenomenon. This team really did their work- not surprised that the comments are mentally ill because if we are being honest with ourselves this is a topic fascists are obsessed with.

Finally the actual material factors behind it have been shown, and not just spewing culture war nonsense. First time in years since something good was added to the convo.

 

[Mohamedamiin120]

I have not watched this documentary, nor have I really engaged with capitalist explanations for the decline of the birth rate due to how outlandish they are most of the time.

But from your explanation of it, it is (at least on the surface) pretty analogous with socialist explanations of the phenomenon. This team really did their work- not surprised that the comments are mentally ill because if we are being honest with ourselves this is a topic fascists are obsessed with.

Finally the actual material factors behind it have been shown, and not just spewing culture war nonsense. First time in years since something good was added to the convo.

I will watch it when I get the time and come back with a response, hopefully it's as good as my expectations.

 

[Shimbiris]

I have not watched this documentary, nor have I really engaged with capitalist explanations for the decline of the birth rate due to how outlandish they are most of the time.

But from your explanation of it, it is (at least on the surface) pretty analogous with socialist explanations of the phenomenon. This team really did their work- not surprised that the comments are mentally ill because if we are being honest with ourselves this is a topic fascists are obsessed with.

Finally the actual material factors behind it have been shown, and not just spewing culture war nonsense. First time in years since something good was added to the convo.

Yeah, probably to get a reaction out of people and get some engagement even the documentary itself, as you will see, engages in a lot of culture war baiting by showing people who are "careerist" stereotypes and things like that here and there but it doesn't let go of the general statistical crux which is that people keep leaving having kids for later due to economic hardships and downturns as well as how long it takes to become "established" in capitalist society only to find that when they're finally ready it's just too late.

The economic downturns are the craziest. Around the 42–43 minute mark you can see that in Italy, childlessness jumps from about 1 in 30 women in 1974 to about 1 in 5 just three years later after the 1973 oil crisis, and then reaches roughly 1 in 3 by 1990; all while the average number of kids per mother barely changes. A huge portion of that whole cohort basically lost their “vitality window” for having kids, and by the time things felt stable again, it was biologically too late. A sad throughline throughout the doc is that most people, even the “careerist” types they clearly included for culture war baiting, keep saying they do want kids. It’s constantly unintentional childlessness, driven less by some sudden hatred of family and more by how messed up and unstable the global economy is.

 

[The Oponian Guild]

It’s big finance and the oligarchs working the minions into the grave eh?

Never had an inkling, swear

 

[Abdirazaq]

It's kinda funny reading the comments section and seeing all the people in there droning on about their own agendas rather than actually watching the documentary. The research in this film lays out something genuinely shocking around the 40-minute mark: birth-rates aren’t collapsing because parents are having fewer children. In country after country (Japan, Italy, Germany, South Korea etc.) the people who do become parents still average roughly the same family size as in the 1970s at about 2-2.5 or so kids per mother which is ironically the "replacement" range economists are always going on about. What’s changed is the share of people who never have children at all. An explosion in childless people, not shrinking family size among parents is what’s driving global fertility down.

And what’s even more interesting is that these spikes in childlessness line up with major economic shocks: the 1970s oil crisis, the Asian financial crisis, the 2008 crash. Each time, huge numbers of people get financially wrecked or spooked, decide to “wait,” and end up pushing family formation past the biologically easy window. By the time they feel “ready”, it’s too late. This basically implies that a large portion of childless adults are not childless by choice at all; they intended to have kids, but economic insecurity and postponement boxed them out. And biology, especially for women, doesn’t care about recessions or recovery cycles.

This lines up well with the survey statistics they share (most people wanting babies) and what I’ve seen in my own lived experience. I’ve been on dating apps here in New England and the UAE, and being a data nerd, I casually tracked how many women had “Don’t want kids” in their profiles. It was small; maybe like 1 in 10 or so. Across ethnic groups and both countries most women still wanted children, as far as I could see. So all this loud online doomer talk about “nobody wants kids anymore” never made sense to me, especially when it didn't seem to hold true even in a liberal bastion like New England. Yes, dating apps have selection bias as they attract people actively seeking companionship, but they’re also where a large chunk of young adults now meet partners, including religious folks, so the signal isn’t meaningless in my humble opinion. Plus, my IRL experience was the same; I admit it's entirely anecdotal and poor form but I just don't tend to meet many people who say they don't want children. At my workplace alone I think I met two people in like 20 or more?

Seeing this documentary finally put the pieces together for me. It’s not that society is suddenly full of child-hating pessimists or that “careerism” has made an entire generation sterile-by-choice. That crowd is just louder online than they are numerous, in my humble opinion. Hilariously, even in this documentary they let that sort of crowd talk a lot despite the statistical realities on display. Most modern people do want children. What’s killing their chances isn’t ideology; it’s the constant economic shocks, instability, and delayed adulthood baked into our modern system. In other words, the bankers did it. Kkkkkkkkkk.


@Idilinaa @Mohamedamiin120 @Thegoodshepherd

I think there's one aspect no one ever mentions, that people who live in first world countries (I'm not absolved of this myself at all) tend to live cushier lives and become much less mature, which leads to people who are biologically in their 20s while their maturity levels are in their teens, its an epidemic across western nations and both MEN and WOMEN are effected by it, this leads to people thinking they're not ready for family life when considering their age they very much are, the economy excuse is a cop out in my opinion, especially when you consider how all these people live in the most economically rich period of history, in the heart of the empires that are the richest.

Other major factors people tend to ignore is that people in western nations and western inspired nations tend to glorify two things more than anything else, materialism and independence, this has lead to people trying to figure out life all by themselves. Communities have disintegrated and at some point the west let go of the idea of a community and replaced it with family (a mother, father and children) its only becoming worse now that even the idea of a family having your back is seen as a negative, in favour of becoming fully independent of it, obviously this leads to childlessness as some people really relied on the community aspect to find a spouse and now that doesn't exist anymore, even asking family about potential spouses in the west is seen as negative, the family only rocks up to the wedding now not even realising you were going to propose to someone. In essence in order to find someone you’re going to have to do it completely by yourself, which is even harder now as people have become more anti-social and less willing to go and meet new people.

The last point about materialism speaks for itself really, people value their things and what they can achieve/earn for themselves now potentially more than in any time in history, things like sacrifice and living for something greater has been thrown out of the window and if that's the case then why have children? The “Might as well wait until I make it” mindset has taken over, in other words its not enough to just be making money, you gotta have achieved some material goal before you can settle down which is just not the mind set people of the past had.

I'll say again for people in the back, economy excuse is a pure cop out, people in countries with low birth rates are just less mature, more greedy and independently minded and much less willing to give up some of these material luxuries in favour for things like family, while all the more not appreciating what they have and fighting for more material accomplishments/goods. There's also the loneliness aspect and it becoming increasing harder to find someone as well (in large part due to the independent mindset which has dismantled communities).

 

[Idilinaa]

I'll watch it later.

I've pointed this out time and time again on this forum. There is no hate for traditional nuclear family or anything, nor is there some immigrant replacement agenda, its simply due to economic. Less and less people can afford to have children.


You don't get exposed to this explanations instead you get the loud right wing weirdo crowd online that push identity politics into it and conspiracy theories. Some Somalis need to stop uncritically eating up everythings these types say.

 

[NidarNidar]

It's kinda funny reading the comments section and seeing all the people in there droning on about their own agendas rather than actually watching the documentary. The research in this film lays out something genuinely shocking around the 40-minute mark: birth-rates aren’t collapsing because parents are having fewer children. In country after country (Japan, Italy, Germany, South Korea etc.) the people who do become parents still average roughly the same family size as in the 1970s at about 2-2.5 or so kids per mother which is ironically the "replacement" range economists are always going on about. What’s changed is the share of people who never have children at all. An explosion in childless people, not shrinking family size among parents is what’s driving global fertility down.

And what’s even more interesting is that these spikes in childlessness line up with major economic shocks: the 1970s oil crisis, the Asian financial crisis, the 2008 crash. Each time, huge numbers of people get financially wrecked or spooked, decide to “wait,” and end up pushing family formation past the biologically easy window. By the time they feel “ready”, it’s too late. This basically implies that a large portion of childless adults are not childless by choice at all; they intended to have kids, but economic insecurity and postponement boxed them out. And biology, especially for women, doesn’t care about recessions or recovery cycles.

This lines up well with the survey statistics they share (most people wanting babies) and what I’ve seen in my own lived experience. I’ve been on dating apps here in New England and the UAE, and being a data nerd, I casually tracked how many women had “Don’t want kids” in their profiles. It was small; maybe like 1 in 10 or so. Across ethnic groups and both countries most women still wanted children, as far as I could see. So all this loud online doomer talk about “nobody wants kids anymore” never made sense to me, especially when it didn't seem to hold true even in a liberal bastion like New England. Yes, dating apps have selection bias as they attract people actively seeking companionship, but they’re also where a large chunk of young adults now meet partners, including religious folks, so the signal isn’t meaningless in my humble opinion. Plus, my IRL experience was the same; I admit it's entirely anecdotal and poor form but I just don't tend to meet many people who say they don't want children. At my workplace alone I think I met two people in like 20 or more?

Seeing this documentary finally put the pieces together for me. It’s not that society is suddenly full of child-hating pessimists or that “careerism” has made an entire generation sterile-by-choice. That crowd is just louder online than they are numerous, in my humble opinion. Hilariously, even in this documentary they let that sort of crowd talk a lot despite the statistical realities on display. Most modern people do want children. What’s killing their chances isn’t ideology; it’s the constant economic shocks, instability, and delayed adulthood baked into our modern system. In other words, the bankers did it. Kkkkkkkkkk.


@Idilinaa @Mohamedamiin120 @Thegoodshepherd

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Shimbiris]

the economy excuse is a cop out in my opinion

That doesn't jibe with the data, though, walaalkay. Take, for example, what I pointed out in their data regarding Italy and what began it's population collapse:

in Italy, childlessness jumps from about 1 in 30 women in 1974 to about 1 in 5 just three years later after the 1973 oil crisis, and then reaches roughly 1 in 3 by 1990; all while the average number of kids per mother barely changes.
​

What cultural shift happened in like 3 years that could be that drastic? It’s not that parents are “too selfish” and only having one kid, for example, as well. The family size among people who do become parents stays pretty much stable. The big change is that a massive chunk of each cohort never becomes parents at all and lose their chance even though the majority of them, according to surveys, seem to want children.

The film shows similar patterns to Japan in many other countries like South Korea (after the 1990s currency crisis), and the US and others after the 2007–08 financial crisis. Each time there’s a major economic shock, you see a spike in people who never start families. A whole cohort goes through years of insecurity, can’t realistically afford kids or gets spooked into “waiting,” and by the time things stabilize they’ve aged out of the easier fertility window, especially the women. Biologically, you don’t get those years back. A lot of those people are, in bloodline terms, just “dead on their feet” even though they’re alive and functioning.

Now, to your point, the documentary does also talk about delayed parenthood and the modern life script (education → career → then family) as a big problem. But even that is, in my humble opinion, more structural than “cultural.” You’re not going to fix this by lecturing 25-year-olds to “stop being immature and make babies.” The system is set up so that a lot of people only hit decent income and stability in their 30s. Look at doctors, lawyers, and a ton of other professions.

I dated a Harvard Med student once and the reality was brutal. She wanted kids, I wanted kids, but it was obvious that once we took a look at her learning and work schedule it would be nearly impossible to have them before 30 without outsourcing the first 5–10 years of our kids’ lives to daycare and me. And even that might have been a stretch to afford as for a good while she’d be a debt-stricken newbie making ~sub 70–80k for the first few years (yes) and I’d still be early-career. That’s not a maturity problem; that’s a design problem in how education, training, and work are structured in major economic centers like Boston.

That’s why this system is so dangerous, you only need one big economic hit, like 2008 or Covid, and an entire cohort loses the crucial 5–10-year “vitality window” when family formation is biologically easiest. To your point, though, the filmmaker basically argues that societies need to rebuild around earlier parenthood (20s instead of mid-30s) if they want to avoid this trap. So sure, materialism and hyper-individualism probably make it worse, but if you look at the patterns he’s showing, the strongest, most consistent correlates are economic shocks plus a system that already delays adulthood, not just people being spoiled or “less mature” than their grandparents.

All in all, culture matters, but the data doesn’t support the idea that “economics is just a cop-out.” The recurring pattern is that unstable, crash-prone economics + structurally delayed adulthood = mass unplanned childlessness, even among people who fully intended to have kids. It all began with the economic volatility dem Florentines started us off on when they laid the groundwork for modern banking.

 

[Abdirazaq]

That doesn't jibe with the data, though, walaalkay. Take, for example, what I pointed out in their data regarding Italy and what began it's population collapse:

in Italy, childlessness jumps from about 1 in 30 women in 1974 to about 1 in 5 just three years later after the 1973 oil crisis, and then reaches roughly 1 in 3 by 1990; all while the average number of kids per mother barely changes.
​

What cultural shift happened in like 3 years that could be that drastic? It’s not that parents are “too selfish” and only having one kid, for example, as well. The family size among people who do become parents stays pretty much stable. The big change is that a massive chunk of each cohort never becomes parents at all and lose their chance even though the majority of them, according to surveys, seem to want children.

The film shows similar patterns to Japan in many other countries like South Korea (after the 1990s currency crisis), and the US and others after the 2007–08 financial crisis. Each time there’s a major economic shock, you see a spike in people who never start families. A whole cohort goes through years of insecurity, can’t realistically afford kids or gets spooked into “waiting,” and by the time things stabilize they’ve aged out of the easier fertility window, especially the women. Biologically, you don’t get those years back. A lot of those people are, in bloodline terms, just “dead on their feet” even though they’re alive and functioning.

Now, to your point, the documentary does also talk about delayed parenthood and the modern life script (education → career → then family) as a big problem. But even that is, in my humble opinion, more structural than “cultural.” You’re not going to fix this by lecturing 25-year-olds to “stop being immature and make babies.” The system is set up so that a lot of people only hit decent income and stability in their 30s. Look at doctors, lawyers, and a ton of other professions.

I dated a Harvard Med student once and the reality was brutal. She wanted kids, I wanted kids, but it was obvious that once we took a look at her learning and work schedule it would be nearly impossible to have them before 30 without outsourcing the first 5–10 years of our kids’ lives to daycare and me. And even that might have been a stretch to afford as for a good while she’d be a debt-stricken newbie making ~sub 70–80k for the first few years (yes) and I’d still be early-career. That’s not a maturity problem; that’s a design problem in how education, training, and work are structured in major economic centers like Boston.

That’s why this system is so dangerous, you only need one big economic hit, like 2008 or Covid, and an entire cohort loses the crucial 5–10-year “vitality window” when family formation is biologically easiest. To your point, though, the filmmaker basically argues that societies need to rebuild around earlier parenthood (20s instead of mid-30s) if they want to avoid this trap. So sure, materialism and hyper-individualism probably make it worse, but if you look at the patterns he’s showing, the strongest, most consistent correlates are economic shocks plus a system that already delays adulthood, not just people being spoiled or “less mature” than their grandparents.

All in all, culture matters, but the data doesn’t support the idea that “economics is just a cop-out.” The recurring pattern is that unstable, crash-prone economics + structurally delayed adulthood = mass unplanned childlessness, even among people who fully intended to have kids. It all began with the economic volatility dem Florentines started us off on when they laid the groundwork for modern banking.

I think we're getting way too much into the weeds here, when I mean the economy excuse is a cop out I mean it from a comparison between different cultures between the ages. Your data shows that in economic slumps and when crisis happens birth rates are affected, what it does not show is why birth rates are so low now, these are two different claims.

In other words if people in the past could have 8 kids on average in much worse conditions then people nowadays should have no issues having 2-3 kids on average, I'm sure when some crisis happened in the past birth rates went down too but it's clearly still relative to the culture. The past and poorer countries today show that the economy is not the prime cause of people having less kids in certain countries. This is what I mean by people using the economy as an excuse when it does not account for the massive downturn in child birth rates although it could affect it at certain points.

 

[Shimbiris]

I think we're getting way too much into the weeds here, when I mean the economy excuse is a cop out I mean it from a comparison between different cultures between the ages. Your data shows that in economic slumps and when crisis happens birth rates are affected, what it does not show is why birth rates are so low now, these are two different claims.

In other words if people in the past could have 8 kids on average in much worse conditions then people nowadays should have no issues having 2-3 kids on average, I'm sure when some crisis happened in the past birth rates went down too but it's clearly still relative to the culture. The past and poorer countries today show that the economy is not the prime cause of people having less kids in certain countries. This is what I mean by people using the economy as an excuse when it does not account for the massive downturn in child birth rates although it could affect it at certain points.

Your argument falls flat, walaal, because you’re comparing two completely different economic worlds. Saying “people used to have 8 kids in worse conditions” ignores the fact that the structure of life, work, and cost in the pre-1960s world or in some poorer and developing countries is nothing like the structure of life today in developed and more developing countries.

You can’t compare pre-industrial or rural societies to modern urban ones:​

In the past, and in many poorer countries today, people had:

• land, extended family, and a rural safety net.
• early adulthood (married young, worked young).
• low costs of housing.
• children as economic assets, not financial liabilities.
• strong community matchmaking.
• zero expectation of 15+ years of schooling before adulthood.

In today’s rich countries:

• People are urbanized, renting, isolated, and must buy everything.
• You don’t start earning a decent income until late 20s or 30s.
• Children are pure financial losses for 20+ years.
• Community support structures are gone.
• People enter the “real world” late because the economy demands a long runway of education and credentialing.

So appealing to “our ancestors had 8 kids in worse conditions” is simply not relevant. They lived in a fundamentally different system. You can't take away the commons (people's rural safety net); throw people into urban life and a system that turns kids into a pure cost for 20+ years; introduce constant economic shocks and delay parenthood in your system then be shocked when you lose entire cohorts everytime the stock market crashes.

Hell, just to get a little anecdotal again… they've even made it more and more impossible to have simple ma and pa shops now. In both Dubai and Boston small businesses are being boxed out by corporations. Every damn pharmacy in Boston is a CVS and almost every grocery store is a 7 Eleven or something. You can't even have those old-school arrangements where kids can help out at ma and pa's shop when they're not at school and be more of an economic help.

But all that aside, it feels like you didn't watch the video. A central theme of the documentary is that birth-rates are not low. The birth-rate among people who actually have children has seemingly remained the same across the developed world since like the 1970s. They drop once society industrializes to about 2-2.5 as people like Hans Rosling noted a long time ago and stay there. Everyone having kids is having the same number of kids their parents and, in some cases where the countries have been developed for longer, their grandparents did. Most have 2, a good number have 1 and a good number have 3 to 4 or more and it averages out at around 2-2.5. This birth-rate has not dropped, walaal.

What seems to be killing the global birth-rates, according to the documentary, is the uptick in childless people. I have to restate this again, the thesis is that people are not having less kids; less people are having kids, period.

And the data in the documentary imparts that those people seem to be doing it due to economic shocks and largely want kids. And the childless cohort seems to keep remaining the same or in some cases even increasing because the economic shocks don't stop. Just when society might recover with a new generation that's ready to make babies and replace the last lost generation (1 in 3 or so that didn't have kids before) BAM, some new crash happens and you lose yet another 1 in 3 or something along those lines. It never stabilizes because the global economy never stabilizes long enough. But again, the folks having kids are seemingly having the same number and are in fact at replacement numbers.

 

[Abdirazaq]

Your argument falls flat, walaal, because you’re comparing two completely different economic worlds. Saying “people used to have 8 kids in worse conditions” ignores the fact that the structure of life, work, and cost in the pre-1960s world or in some poorer and developing countries is nothing like the structure of life today in developed and more developing countries.

You can’t compare pre-industrial or rural societies to modern urban ones:​

In the past, and in many poorer countries today, people had:

• land, extended family, and a rural safety net.
• early adulthood (married young, worked young).
• low costs of housing.
• children as economic assets, not financial liabilities.
• strong community matchmaking.
• zero expectation of 15+ years of schooling before adulthood.

In today’s rich countries:

• People are urbanized, renting, isolated, and must buy everything.
• You don’t start earning a decent income until late 20s or 30s.
• Children are pure financial losses for 20+ years.
• Community support structures are gone.
• People enter the “real world” late because the economy demands a long runway of education and credentialing.

So appealing to “our ancestors had 8 kids in worse conditions” is simply not relevant. They lived in a fundamentally different system. You can't take away the commons (people's rural safety net); throw people into urban life and a system that turns kids into a pure cost for 20+ years; introduce constant economic shocks and delay parenthood in your system then be shocked when you lose entire cohorts everytime the stock market crashes.

Hell, just to get a little anecdotal again… they've even made it more and more impossible to have simple ma and pa shops now. In both Dubai and Boston small businesses are being boxed out by corporations. Every damn pharmacy in Boston is a CVS and almost every grocery store is a 7 Eleven or something. You can't even have those old-school arrangements where kids can help out at ma and pa's shop when they're not at school and be more of an economic help.

But all that aside, it feels like you didn't watch the video. A central theme of the documentary is that birth-rates are not low. The birth-rate among people who actually have children has seemingly remained the same across the developed world since like the 1970s. They drop once society industrializes to about 2-2.5 as people like Hans Rosling noted a long time ago and stay there. Everyone having kids is having the same number of kids their parents and, in some cases where the countries have been developed for longer, their grandparents did. Most have 2, a good number have 1 and a good number have 3 to 4 or more and it averages out at around 2-2.5. This birth-rate has not dropped, walaal.

What seems to be killing the global birth-rates, according to the documentary, is the uptick in childless people. I have to restate this again, the thesis is that people are not having less kids; less people are having kids, period.

And the data in the documentary imparts that those people seem to be doing it due to economic shocks and largely want kids. And the childless cohort seems to keep remaining the same or in some cases even increasing because the economic shocks don't stop. Just when society might recover with a new generation that's ready to make babies and replace the last lost generation (1 in 3 or so that didn't have kids before) BAM, some new crash happens and you lose yet another 1 in 3 or something along those lines. It never stabilizes because the global economy never stabilizes long enough. But again, the folks having kids are seemingly having the same number and are in fact at replacement numbers.

I think you're now agreeing a lot more with my initial statement than you did before, while still blaming the system, I don't see it that way personally, its the people who choose the system not the other way round, imo its the culture that drives the system, and the people choose society the way it is today, with their preferences, again love for materialism and a deep desire for independence has caused the system to be the way it is. Not even dictatorial regimes last if the people rebel enough and are dissatisfied with it.

In other words systems reflect the people who live in it. Also your point about people who initially have one child usually end up with 2-3, shows that those who are serious about having children do have them while those who aren't so serious about it end up missing out on children, essentially their mistake, they most likely had other values that took priority over family even if they did eventually want family which kinda proves my point, in the end of the day it's people values that drive how many children they have.