Field Note: Less People, More Machines

It feels like we’re living in a transitional period where automation is replacing jobs at a pace so slow and inconsistent, nobody really notices it happening. Meanwhile, in contrast, birth rates are falling in several countries at a pace that is being noticed and people are panicking. The assumption is that low birth rates are bad for a country. And sure, they can be, under certain conditions. But in this rare moment, this in-between era where automation is steadily growing, declining birth rates might actually be beneficial.

It’s a needle we have to thread. Ideally, birth rates decline at a controlled pace while productivity from automation rises. That way, when jobs are left vacant by a shrinking workforce, automation is ready to fill the gap. The population doesn’t skyrocket, unemployment stays low, and the transition into a tech-heavy economy happens gradually rather than chaotically.

Honestly, we should focus more on ensuring lower birth rates. Automation, like AI, is quietly marching towards a tipping point. Think of it as a “timid singularity”, not a dramatic, sentient takeover, but a moment where innovation reaches a critical mass and suddenly explodes in speed and capability. One breakthrough could trigger a cascade of upgrades, and the tech might go from niche to dominant before we have time to brace ourselves.

If that moment comes, it’s a lot easier to adapt if the labor pool is already shrinking. With fewer people needing jobs, automation can step in without sparking mass unemployment. In fact, if birth rates drop enough and job vacancies rise, that labor shortage might actually force us to accelerate automation, pushing the tech further and faster than market trends alone would.

Now, the problem. Or at least here in the U.S. We’re still dealing with a population that’s too big for that kind of automation leap to happen cleanly. We’d either need universal basic income to support displaced workers or start strategically lowering birth rates and wait. Wait for years, maybe decades, until the numbers align and it becomes morally justifiable to roll out automation at scale.

And when I say “automation singularity,” let me be clear: I’m not talking about conscious AI or humanoid robots. I’m talking about self-checkout machines, factory robots, and task-specific machines with just enough intelligence to replace human labor. No personality. No soul. Just effective, efficient job-doers.

It’s kind of funny how this whole train of thought started because I saw a news story about Republicans panicking over declining birth rates. And to be clear, I’m Republican too, but even I don’t think it’s worth freaking out over. I do worry there’s a dog whistle buried in there somewhere, a fear that lower birth rates will somehow lead to more immigration or a shift in cultural demographics. But that’s just my gut talking.

Here’s another thought I pondered: imagine a sitting president being faced with this situation. They’d have three choices. One, create incentives and programs to boost the birth rate, the popular choice. But that’s a short-term fix that could leave us worse off when automation inevitably takes over. Two, ignore it altogether, not a great look, but not the most hated option either. And then there’s the third path: the hard, unpopular, honest one. The one where the president levels with the public and explains exactly what’s coming—an intentional, strategic path toward lower birth rates and automation readiness. Not because we’re anti-family, but because we’re pro-future.