To be clear, I don't hate babies.

Right now America is struggling with antagonistic political divisions, the effects of anthropogenic climate change and an economic system that has $1,500 doggie daycares, but is cool with letting people go homeless. But the good news is that amidst all this chaos and confusion, there is one thing we're doing right:

Having fewer babies.

This specific baby however
is clearly a total jerk.

A new study carried out by the-huh? I don't hate babies, why would you think-oh, because I said that thing about how we're doing it right by having fewer of them. I don't have anything against babies per se, it's just...look, there's a finite amount of space and resources and I just think that maybe tapping the breaks a little on our contribution to the global population isn't the worst idea, ok? Besides, whatever my feelings on the subject of babies, like as a thing, it's not like they're going to stop people from having them.

Iowa Representative Steve King,
I'm looking at you...

Anyway, a study carried out by the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the U.S. fertility rate below the level necessary for population replacement. The biggest drop is among non-hispanic white women, and while black and hispanic women have fertility rates above replacement level, the overall rate in the U.S. among people of all races taken together is still below 16% below replacement. So I give it, what? Two days before some Republican says something super racist about this? One? Because you know someone will.

Pictured: the future of American jobs...or
possibly the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Ok, so fewer babies, what does that mean? Well eventually it will mean a glorious future where the line at the grocery store is shorter, tickets to shows and sporting events will be cheaper and there will be fewer people being horrible to one another on social media. So, bright side, right? Also, in a weird way, fewer young people in the work force might also be a good thing. Sure, every business will probably be Amazon by then, but still, someone has to work those shitty picker jobs.

Something similar happened in the middle ages when the plague wiped out a third of the European population and suddenly peasants were in high demand. The power shifted from the employers to the employed. The economic shift helped create the concept of the middle class. Remember the middle class? Yeah, me neither.

The internet assures me that American families used to be able to sustain
themselves on a single income and own a house. I remain skeptical.

"Wow, the 80's sound super-interesting,
but our time is up. Tap here to tip me 20%."

But you know, a declining population isn't all short lines and peasant uprisings. There'll probably be some drawbacks as well. For instance, an aging population might lead to a crisis of care as older Americans find themselves without children to take care of them when they can no longer work. Japan, another country facing a declining population, has explored the idea of using robots to take care of their elderly which I am all for. Of course, with the gig-economy, our solution will probably be some start-up with a dumb app.

So what do we do? Got me. Having a declining population sounds like a problem, but then so does having a rising one. I would think that a more or less stable population is the ideal. And if births are on the decline, it kind of seems like maybe we should just make it easier for people to move here, right?

Hey, since we're literally running out of people, maybe
the Trump people could lighten up on immigration?
And you know, also stop being garbage humans?