Of course the actual limits are much lower because the above is assuming that we can pack humans so that there is no space that is not occupied by humans which we cannot do because, among other things, (1) our shapes don't fit together perfectly to allow such tight packing, (2) there isn't enough mass in the 12101 light year sphere to make that many humans, and (3) we would need to use much of that space for the infrastructure needed to support humans.

If you calculate the volume of a sphere of radius 12101 light years centered on Earth and divide that volume by what the population would be after 12101 years of 1% annual growth you get 0.04 m^3 per person.īut the volume of an average human is ~0.06 m^3, which is greater than 0.04 m^3.Īt 0.1% annual growth it would take a little over 127000 years to run out of room.Īt 0.01% annual growth we've got 1.34 million years.

12101 years from now every living human must be within 12101 years of Earth. Without FTL it follows that 1 year from now every living human must be within 1 light year of Earth, 2 years from now every living human must be within 2 light years of Earth, and so on. Proof: Right now every living human is either on Earth or close to Earth. It is easy to see that it cannot remain above 1% for more than 12101 years (assuming FTL travel is not discovered). For example the current growth rate of world population is around 1.1% per year. We can have growth, but the growth rate must decline over time. Children used to be a capital investment and are now a cost center. The article touches on the lack of economic incentives for higher fertility but seems to treat it as more of an externality than a fundamental problem. A large fraction of children go to college (often at their parents' expense) and move out of the local community, newly minted economic units destined to enrich the already super-rich with their labor, which promises no tangible benefits to potential parents. Owning a car is roughly as expensive as raising one child for 18 years, especially if there's any consideration given to using newer cars with higher safety standards.Ĭutting to the core of the article, though, is it any wonder that a hypercapitalist society doesn't prefer having children? There's no contract saying that children must contribute back to their parents in any economic way so they are a poor investment compared to bonds or stocks. And probably by a lot more than having to use a car seat. One could also argue that the U.S.'s lack of affordable high-quality mass transit reduces fertility. Is that car seat really the deal breaker if the rest of expenses for a third child can’t be covered? There are some comparable increases in birth rate linked to decreases in home prices i the linked NBER paper. Housing is a larger expense and more broadly felt problem than car seats.

That’s not the situation we’re in as a country. Most of the top ten vehicles sold this year are large, expensive, SUVs and Trucks. If avoiding minivans and SUVs is the reason to avoid a third child, I doubt their heart was in it. At one point the author mentions some people dislike minivans. If you’re in a situation as a society where your income as real purchase power is rising then the solution to this problem is to buy another car (which people do anyway) or outsource your transport. I’m neutral on a birth rate increase but this smacks of treating symptoms of economic stress.

3 across car seats