Category: Geopolitics

Introduction

Western nations are experiencing a major demographic shift. Birth rates are declining, populations are aging, and fewer young people are entering the workforce to support growing numbers of retirees. Governments have tried various measures to reverse this trend—cash incentives, parental leave, and even immigration—but none have effectively restored birth rates to sustainable levels. Why? Because the root issue is not just financial, but societal incentives.

In contrast, developing nations continue to have high birth rates, despite being poorer on average. This suggests that economic hardship alone does not suppress family growth—it’s about what society values and supports. If Western societies truly want to encourage family formation, they need to rethink their entire approach. This article explores why current measures have failed and how real incentives can change the trajectory.

 

---

Failed Attempts to Boost Birth Rates

1. Immigration as a Quick Fix

One of the primary strategies used by Western governments to compensate for declining birth rates has been mass immigration. The logic is simple: bring in working-age adults from developing nations to sustain the economy. While this provides an immediate labor force, it is not a long-term solution for several reasons:

• Cultural & Political Tensions: Many locals fear being displaced or outnumbered, leading to rising anti-immigration sentiment.
• Short-Term Economic Gains: Migrants age too. Without a steady native-born population, nations will eventually face the same problem.
• Integration Challenges: Differences in language, culture, and economic status can create social tensions, making mass immigration a band-aid solution rather than a real fix.

2. Small Cash Incentives for Babies

Several countries, including Japan and South Korea, have experimented with giving couples one-time payments for having children. However, these programs have largely failed. Why?

• Raising a child is a long-term commitment: A one-time payment of $5,000 or even $10,000 barely scratches the surface of the financial burden over 18+ years.
• Parents need structural support, not just money: Childcare, work flexibility, and affordable housing matter far more than a one-time bonus.

3. Parental Leave & Childcare Subsidies

Nordic countries like Sweden and Norway have some of the best family policies in the world—paid parental leave, childcare subsidies, and flexible work arrangements. While these measures have kept birth rates from collapsing, they have not significantly increased them. The reason? Women still prefer careers over motherhood when the two seem incompatible.

Simply giving parental leave doesn’t address the core issue: raising kids is still seen as a burden rather than a rewarding societal role.

 

---

A Better Approach: Incentives That Truly Support Families

Rather than treating family formation as an afterthought, societies should make it the most attractive lifestyle option. The goal should be to make marriage and child-rearing so advantageous that the majority of adults naturally choose it. Here’s how:

1. Fewer Work Hours, Same Pay

• Couples should work 7-hour days but get paid for 8.
• Parents should work 6-hour days but get paid for 8.
• This makes family life sustainable without sacrificing income.
• Companies already allow pet owners to take breaks—why not parents?

2. More Leave and Sick Days for Parents

• More vacation days and sick leave should be given to parents and married couples.
• If people know they won’t have to choose between career and family, they are more likely to have kids.

3. Priority Social Housing for Families

• Affordable housing is one of the biggest barriers to having children.
• Couples should be prioritized for social housing.
• Parents should have access to mortgage-style rent payments, where they pay what they can afford long-term, similar to how US student loans work.

4. Low or No Taxes for Families

• Married couples should pay 50% less tax.
• Parents should pay ZERO taxes.
• A family that knows they can raise children without excessive tax burdens will be more motivated to have kids.

5. Workplace Daycare Facilities

• If companies can allow pets in the office, they can set up small in-house daycare facilities.
• Parents can work while their children are cared for nearby.
• This eliminates daycare costs and allows parents to stay engaged in their careers.

6. Making Children a Normal Part of Society Again

• In many Western workplaces, it’s okay to bring a dog but frowned upon to bring a child.
• Businesses and public spaces should normalize children being present.
• If you can hear dogs barking on Zoom calls, why should a baby’s laugh be a problem?

 

---

How Would This Change Society?

If these policies were implemented, within 10 years, 90% of adults would be married with children.

• Marriage and family would become the default lifestyle.
• Career and parenthood would no longer be in conflict.
• Financial and workplace support would make raising kids easier.

Would some people feel penalized for not having kids? Possibly. But right now, the reverse is happening—parents and families are being penalized while child-free individuals enjoy a system built around them. If we truly believe children are the future, society must prioritize them, just as it does with pets, careers, and individual freedoms.

 

 

---

Conclusion: The Time for Change is Now

Western societies are at a crossroads. They can continue to rely on ineffective solutions like immigration and small cash bonuses, or they can restructure incentives to make family life attractive and feasible. The choice is clear—if we want a future where birth rates are sustainable, we need to stop punishing parents and start rewarding family formation.

Governments and businesses alike must recognize that investing in families is not a short-term expense, but a long-term investment in the survival of the nation. The policies proposed here may seem radical today, but they are the only way to ensure that Western societies thrive for generations to come.These measures are probably anti-capitalist. Capitalism has gotten us so far, it doesn’t necessarily have to be the one to take us further.

“… but time and chance happeneth to them all.”

I find this portion of the bible very interesting, especially because it seem like it’s lesson is lost to many who come across it.  The lesson being that just as everyone is subject to time, everyone gets a chance.

 

A very important lesson I learned a long time ago, which is summarized recently as “how your entire life pans out depends on 1-3 key decisions”. Sounds scary, but it’s true.

 

Everyone gets a chance, or chances. What we don’t know is how many chances you get. And when the chances will come. But the chance will come, if it hasn’t already. Question, will you recognize it? Will you be prepared to take advantage of it?

 

Whether you end up being poor or rich depends on what you did with the opportunit(y/ies) that came your way. Might have been when you were a teenager. Might be your early 20s, could be your late 30s.

 

And when you think deeply about it, everyone you know very well, what their life is currently boils down to 2 or 3 decisions. Which job offer to accept, who to marry, where to reside, etc.

 

Now, this is not me disputing the geographic or family lottery. That is, where you’re born and the family you’re born into already determines the direction of your life, to a high degree. However, what you will be able to make of your life eventually boils down to a few decisions. That is, what you do with the chance or chances that come your way.

 

Hence, it’s very important to stay prepared for opportunity. Remember, everyone will get at least a chance. Problem is, you don’t know when it’ll come. Just as you don’t know how many you’ll get. So, stay prepared. And when the chance comes, pray for the grace to recognize it for what it is. And then make sure you treat it like it’s the last chance you’re ever gonna get.

RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

Russia invaded Ukraine February 2022 and the “conflict” has been going on since then. Summary of the issue is that Russia believes certain parts of Ukraine should be part of Russia and they want to take it back. Also, they don’t like the idea of having a country close to them joining NATO. As they consider that a threat to their sovereignty since NATO is strongly driven by the US. Ukraine specifically wants to join NATO to help protect it from Russian encroachment.

Now, things could have gone differently before the fighting started. For example, Ukraine could have agreed to concede some of the land to Russia is exchange for not having a war. And I also understand why they didn’t. Because say they agree to concede 1%. What’s stopping Russia from coming back to demand for 10% more? Most of the western world decided to sanction Russia heavily, with the hope that it’ll force them to back down. Locked them out of the SWIFT payment system. Stopped buying oil and other export from them. De-banked a lot of Russian entities home and abroad. Threat of force doesn’t seem to deter Russia. And invasion is probably not on the table because Russia possess nuclear weapons and they’ve made it clear they’re willing to use it.

 

Summary is, every form of escalation option has been explored and status quo remains the same. So? Perhaps it’s time to go the other direction, de-escalation. Neither Russia nor Ukraine and its allies having infinite resources.

 

Because the question we have to ask ourselves is, what’s the possible endgame scenarios.

Ukraine wins the war

What will that mean? Does it mean Russia ceases to exist? Meaning all Russians are suddenly dead? Does it mean Russian military is heavily decapitated? Meaning they can regroup and come back? And assuming any of this happens? What’s left of Ukraine? How long will it take to get back to where they were before the war?

Russia wins the war

Does this mean Russia annexes the whole of Ukraine? If that happens, will the Ukrainians take that lying down? Does it mean all Ukrainians were evicted from the territory, hence no one to fight for it again? And if that happens, what’s to stop them from coming back to try to fight for their land again?

 

The only way forward as far as I can tell is a middle ground where Ukraine gives what they can and Russia takes what they’re given.

 

 

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

The Israel-Gaza war started October 2023 when Hamas (Palestinian militant group and political organization that governs the Gaza Strip) launched a large scale surprise attack on Israel. And it’s been going on since then.

 

The summary is that Israel believes the land is theirs. Palestinians believe the land is theirs. It’s been an argument of who got there first. Palestinians attack Israelis. It teaches the next generation of Israelis to want to have their revenge on Palestinians. Israelis attack Palestinians, it breeds a new generation of Palestinians that hate Israel.

 

How can the conflict be ended permanently? Each party has been taking turns to escalate for decades and it hasn’t yielded fruit. Perhaps it’s time to try de-escalation? Agree to split the land between the 2, with a clause that whichever party breeches that agreement will have the full force of the UN (or whatever enforcing body) descend on them. While also providing resources for the most affected party to rebuild and re-educate it’s people.

 

Conflicts like this are going on all over the world. Tribes/ethnic groups fighting over who should own or rule a territory. And after generations of continous escalation, one party needs to take the first step towards de-escalation.

Many of us were born and grew up in a world that includes income tax. So, it’s hard for us to imagine a world without one. But the reality is, income taxes weren’t always a thing. At least not in the way it is now.

 

I strongly believe that societies can run without income tax. It is a valid question to ask how will government function without taxes. But how will we know if we never try? Asides the fact that very few societies still function today without income tax.

 

 

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

A government that cannot function without income taxes probably shouldn’t exist. Because it’s clearly too expensive for the territory.

 

The government is put in charge of the territory’s resources. They’re responsible for money made by the territory from trading with other territories. For example, custom duties or sale of weapons. Most territories have 1 or more natural resources that they extract and sell within and outside the territory. Of which the government is usually primarily responsible.

 

Most government institutions also generate revenue. Not necessarily profit, but revenue regardless.

 

Now, if a government is unable to function despite all these multiple source of income, they’re clearly doing something wrong.

 

 

SOCIAL SECURITY & INFRASTRUCTURE

One question that’ll typically pop up in one’s mind when you consider how the government can function without income tax is how will they cover social security – unemployment benefit, pension, etc.

 

But it’s simple, there’s already insurance for that. Of which citizens and residents are made to mandatorily pay into. The funds from inform tax is not what pays for unemployment benefit. There’s a separate deduction that covers that in form of insurance.

 

What about roads? Pipe borne water? Electricity? The above still applies. The government is supposed to be generating enough money to be able to provide these for its people and the people pay for using it. Hence the reason governments take loans. But why take loans, take mutlipe taxes, but still unable to provide all of these things reliably to your people?

 

 

MULTIPLE LAYER OF TAX

One of the fundamental problems with income tax is that it’s essentially double taxation. For every amount you make, legally or illegally, you’re already paying multiple taxes on it as long as you spend it.

 

At the base level, you’ll pay VAT (Value Added Tax), which is a tax that’s applied to most items you purchase. If you buy a car, there’s specific taxes. If you buy a house, theses specific taxes. So, that same income you already paid income tax on, you’ll at least pay 2 extra taxes on later. Asides the fact that the company that paid you already paid taxes too. VAT and specific tax applied to what you spend the money on.

 

 

NEED FOR INCOME TAX

Income taxes as they were introduced originally were meant to be temporal. As pointed out earlier, government already has several ways to generate money. However, sometimes, government expenditure has to exceed their income. In such time, citizens can residents can be taxed to generate money for that period. For example, if the territory is at war and needs more fund for weapons and military personnel.

 

Such measures are meant to be temporary. But what we’ve seen is that government is being structured such that it’s constantly spending way more than it makes. And whenever the government is “broke”, the first thought of politicians is to raise taxes. Not figure out a way to cut government spending. But a way to extract more from its own citizens and residents. It’s an unsustainable model.

 

If a government cannot stay functional without continually taking more and more from its people, despite being put in charge of the territory’s resources, perhaps it’s time for a rethink of the effectiveness of the government and how government should be funded.

Before you proceed, please note that these are my thoughts. I’m neither a lawyer nor a politician.

 

INCENTIVES

I do not think the idea of citizenship by birth as is practiced in the US and other American countries is ideal, at least for the modern time. It incentivizes the wrong things while being unfair to some others.

 

The idea that someone can be on a visit to your country, and the mere fact that they give birth while on the visit guarantees the child citizenship of that country doesn’t sound right. It incentivicizes what is now called birth tourism. That is, a pregnant woman will plan to visit the country (say US) close to their delivery date so that delivery can happen while they’re in the country. This way, the new born child is entitled to citizenship.

 

Or the idea that someone can find their way into your country illegally. But by virtue of giving birth while in the country, their child is therefor a citizen and that grants certain rights to the parent. It incentivizes what is now called anchor baby.

 

None of the 2 things is something a country should be enabling. Especially when same country has several millions that have lived there for decades legally, paying taxes and all, but don’t even have Permanent Residence (PR/Green card), talkless of citizenship.

 

I’d think what makes sense is to incentivize those already in the country legally, contributing continuously to the society with PR and citizenship, as is done in most parts of the world.

 

Take Germany for instance, if a child is born in Germany, whether or not they’re instantly eligible for citizenship depends on whether one or both of the parents is a German citizen or PR holder that lived in the country legally for certain number of years. They only get a permit just as their parents. Such a child is eligible for citizenship when one or both of the parent becomes a citizen too. Or after the child has lived and integrated in the country for a couple of years.

 

This arrangement makes more sense to me in the context of incentives.

 

NEED FOR CITIZENSHIP

Now, the idea of having a country’s passport or not doesn’t hold much value to a child, from my perspective. Let’s say a child is born and they get a German passport instantly, they have very little use for the passport. A child cannot vote. A child cannot travel on their own. I think the main value for the child is right to stay in the country indefinitely, which of course still somehow depends on parents. Because which parent will leave their child behind if they’re leaving the country for whatever reason?

 

 

STATELESS INDIVIDUALS

As with a lot of geopolitical issues, there’s no simple solution. Some people are stateless. They do not have the passport of any country and probably can’t easily get one. For example, if a Nigerian travels to benin republic, they do not need a passport to cross the border as fellow ECOWAS state. If they somehow find a way to smuggle themselves to Italy. At the border, they won’t have an ID to show. And do not have the ability to return back to Nigeria to get a Nigerian passport. Such a person falls under the category of stateless.

 

Hence, if they have a child, the child too will be stateless, which is not ideal.

 

The first thought will be to create exception for stateless parents. However that introduces a new loophole. People can go ahead to make themselves stateless to qualify for the exception.

 

CONCLUSION

While I do not have an easy solution/replacement for the concept of “citizenship by birth” as is practiced in many American countries, I don’t think the current structure is ideal. It’s for sure not favorable to the stakeholders as we can see from current turn of events.

I intend to use this space to document my thought on random things, ideas, events and what not. Topics will range from religion, history, sociology, politics, geopolitics and science.

 

I hope to publish something at least every few days. As long as life allows me to.

 

And if there’s a topic you’ll love me to talk about, feel free to shoot me a message.