In his latest post Nick Land seems to be arguing that industrialization and economic growth need to always be accompanied by women entering the workforce and being given equal status as men, which necessarily leads to a decline in fertility. Therefore if modern industrial (and post-industrial) states want rapid economic growth (short-term), they will always have to suffer a serious collapse in fertility concluding his post with: “Modernity crushes fertility because it sees ahead better than you do — you just don’t like what it’s seeing.”



I believe this to be utterly wrong.



In the comment section below the post, Land mentions that “China was pro-natalist when losing against modernity, under the Qing, and anti-natalist while winning the modernity game, since Deng.”

To observe a mere correlation between variable X (economic growth) and variable Y (anti-natalist state policies), does not mean that there is any causal relationship between the two. To prove that there is a causal relationship between the two one needs:

1. A theory of what the causal relationship is and how it operates

2. More data

Land’s theory seems to be this:

“The problem of time-horizons at the root of the modern fertility crisis is easily trivialized, as if it were merely a product of adjustable degenerate attitudes. The deep problem — partially tractable to game-theoretical apprehension — is that, under the conditions of the modern state in an environment of intense competition, suppressed natalism is a short-term winning strategy, and if you don’t win in the short-term you’re not around to play in the long term. If the world becomes increasingly Hobbesian in the decades ahead, this dilemma becomes more acute, rather than less so. It presses no less heavily upon a monarch than a democratic leader. Continuing industrial advance means that the (strategic) opportunity cost of subtracting smart females from the work-force becomes ever greater. Any ideal of ‘long-term thinking’ that ignores all of this is incomplete to the point of utter dysfunction.”



So apparently you need to allow (at least smart) women into the workforce (which presumably leads to more equality between the sexes), in order to grow your economy and stay competitive in the short term. Land’s mentioning of the rapid industrialization of communist China, while pursuing anti-natalist policies, seems to be the ‘data’ part of his argument.



First of all, the “China rapidly industrialized while forcing everyone to have less children” is a bit of a tricky case study, because even while banning everyone from having children, the population of China still doubled from the 60’s to the present day. And as Spandrell mentions in the comment section, Deng’s anti-natalist policies were probably pursued mainly because the population was rising far too quickly which could cause serious food shortages.



Secondly, just one case study won’t do. Luckily we have another great Asian nation, also experiencing a collapse in fertility, more serious than that of any other developed country at the moment – Japan. Japan actually fully industrialized before China did, to the point that in the 1930’s it was already a global industrial superpower which conquered most of East Asia with relative ease.



But Japan is also a great counterfactual to “competitiveness requires fertility collapse” theory because it was able to achieve all of that economic prosperity and rapid industrialization, from a backward peripheral state in the 1870’s, to a global superpower roughly half a century later, by keeping their fertility level above 4 children per woman on average (data from before the 50’s is scarce, but fertility was evidently well above the replacement minimum).



We know from history that by WWII Japan was an economic and military superpower. We also know that it also had a very high fertility rate which at least to me, seems to be a serious counterfactual to what Land is implying. But wait, there is more!



We also have another example of a relatively backward country being able to modernize and achieve economic prosperity all the while keeping the fertility rate above the replacement level – Spain under Franco’s regime. I have discussed this at length in a previous post, so I will keep this relatively short.



Before Franco, Spain had been declining for decades (if not for centuries), eventually resulting in a civil war with the very real danger of the once proud empire succumbing to the disease of communism. Luckily Franco won the war and suppressed all overly-leftist sentiments. He also seriously enforced traditionalism and patriarchy, keeping women subordinated to men, to the point that divorce was illegal and women couldn’t own property or even travel without the permission of their husbands (see my earlier post on the topic). Fertility under his regime was kept stable between the rates of 2.4 and 3.



At the same time, after a protracted and serious struggle Franco was able to comprehensively modernize the Spanish economy in the 50’s and 60’s, achieving a remarkable economic boom which lasted from the late 50’s to the mid-70’s, popularly known as “The Spanish Miracle”.



The cases of the rapid Japanese industrialization in the late 19th and early 20th century and the economic boom in Spain in the 50’s and the 60’s were accompanied by a fertility rate well above the 2.1 threshold – roughly 4 in Japan and between 2.4 and 3 in Spain.



That’s great, but we both know that nowadays the fertility rates in Japan and Spain are pretty depressing. What happened? This has been discussed at length before – the case of Japan by Jim and the case of Spain by me (the post linked earlier). But let’s briefly summarize what we know about them already.



In the case of Japan – after they lost WWII, good ol’ uncle Sam drafted them a whole new shiny constitution, with a focus on equality, human rights and everything nice. Legal equality for women was of course included as well. The result was this. As that wonderful little study tells us, in the decade after the new constitution was adopted the Japanese fertility rate dropped like a rock from 4.54 to 2.04. And of course it has proceeded to decline well under the replacement levels in the decades afterwards.



In the case of Spain – after Franco died, the Spanish State Department started to move left as fast and far as possible and by the 80’s all of the pillars upon which Franco build post-Civil War Spain were demolished, especially patriarchy and traditionalism. Just like in Japan the fertility rate plummeted from between 2.4 to 3 under Franco to around 1.4 in the past decade.



I believe the historical cases of Japan and Spain conclusively show that a country does not need to massacre its fertility rate in order to achieve industrialization, modernization and economic prosperity. Contrary to Land who says “I’m not at all trying to suggest it isn’t a problem. But it’s a tragic problem, rather than a stupid problem.” I do believe fertility decline is a stupid, but very serious problem which has (almost) nothing to do with economic necessity, but a lot to do with progressive egalitarian insanity.



As Spandrell notes the issue of whether to allow women into the workforce is about marginal returns. It might make sense below a certain threshold but above that certain threshold they can twist the workplace dynamic in a detrimental way and may even bias the job market in their favor. That tends to discourage men from working which is a very bad thing for the economy and for future social stability. If that is allowed to happen it is eventually bound to lead total social, demographic and economic collapse.



ADDED: Relevant post on the topic by Scott Alexander.

ADDED: Athrelon shares his thoughts too.

