“Wedged between South American heavyweights Argentina and Brazil, Paraguay has long been ignored by the international community. Small, landlocked and poor, it was often seen as just a fly-over country.

So it’s a little surprising — to both those in the capital and in the region — that the country of 6.1 million people is suddenly having a moment…

Though roughly the size of California, Paraguay’s $47 billion economy is about 1% of the Golden State’s. But rapid growth and economic reforms in recent years helped the country win investment-grade credit status from Moody’s Ratings in 2024 and from S&P Global last year…

Last century, it was run as a dictatorship for 35 years — one of the longest in the region, whose fall in 1989 was followed by a tumultuous transition to democracy. But Paraguay’s embrace of sound fiscal and monetary policies after its 2003 financial crisis is now paying off, with single-digit inflation and annual growth averaging around 4% over the past two decades.”

From Bloomberg.

“A new study across 38 countries found that among adults aged 20-45 who work from home at least one day per week, actual births since 2023 and planned family size are higher. This implies that an increase in remote work would boost fertility much more effectively than expensive pronatalist policies.”

From Project Syndicate.

Summary: Early household robots like NEO may look unimpressive today, but they have great long-term potential. As birth rates fall and the burdens of parenting loom large, technologies that reduce everyday household labor could make family life far more manageable. Just as past innovations transformed domestic work and reshaped society, robotic housekeepers may one day help free time and ease parenthood.

The debut of the robot butler NEO has drawn widespread ridicule. Unable to perform many chores without a remote human operator, the machine has become a target of social media backlash. Videos circulating online show the robot struggling with basic tasks, such as closing a dishwasher.

But don’t underestimate the potential of robotic housekeepers just yet.

The technology is dawning at an opportune time. Consider the growing concerns about plummeting birth rates. Last year saw the lowest fertility rate ever recorded in the United States, below 1.6 children per woman.

Could robots help to reverse the trend by relieving the burden of household drudgery associated with child-rearing?

The question has broad implications because the United States’ low fertility is no anomaly. Global fertility decline is speeding up, doubling between the 2000s and 2010s and again this decade. This means the world’s population will almost certainly peak earlier than experts projected, and at a much lower level. Many countries are contemplating expensive taxpayer-funded efforts to spark a new baby boom, despite the poor track record of such policies.

There is much disagreement on what caused the 1950s baby boom, but one theory is that the rise of time-saving technologies played a key role. Between the 1920s and 1950s, domestic responsibilities were transformed as the number of households equipped with electric appliances, including refrigerators, stoves, vacuums and washing machines, rose dramatically. The new machines lessened the burden of household labor, freeing up time and making parenthood easier.

In the present era, technology is once again freeing up more time for many people, and not just by reducing commute times through remote or hybrid work. While reading about the latest breakthroughs, one might get the impression that machines are only learning to perform enjoyable and creative tasks, such as writing or drawing, rather than tending to the menial household chores that many would prefer to automate. One internet user expressed the sentiment this way: “I don’t want AI to do my art so I can do my laundry and dishes. I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so I can do my art.” Many would gladly welcome Rosey the robot maid into their homes.

The potential of technology to free humanity from the burden of household labor deserves more attention. Perhaps no group would benefit more than parents. The more children one has, the more laundry piles up and dishes fill the sink.

Various companies are racing to offer the public affordable robots to do housework. Robotic housekeepers might be here sooner than you think — even if NEO is seemingly not yet able to live up to its creator’s vision of a robot butler able to effortlessly empty the dishwasher, water house plants and do other chores. Tesla’s Optimus robot can fold laundry and take out the garbage, among other tasks. There are even robots that can wash dishes as fast as a human can.

If such technologies become widely available, everyday life will be far easier, and so will parenthood.

There are already robotic lawn mowers. In fact, a 2025 survey found that 13% of U.S. homes own a robotic lawn mower. And robot vacuums have become so common as to be unremarkable. In the United States, 15% of households now own a robotic vacuum, according to a YouGov poll. In the United Kingdom, one in 10 households owns one, while one in seven households reportedly plans to buy one within the next 12 months.

I remember when my family purchased a robot vacuum. We watched, mesmerized, as it zigzagged across the nursery carpet. Our toddler oohed and followed it around. Our awe reminded me of a touching account of a grandmother who had painstakingly scrubbed clothes by hand her whole life and then watched with wonder as her new laundry machine completed the task for her. One of the reasons I have more children than most is that I’m a techno-optimist, and I believe that my children will inherit a world with less toil and more joy. (My husband and I are expecting our fourth child.)

Of course, outsourcing all household chores to robots wouldn’t guarantee higher fertility. One lesson from the history of demographic forecasting is the need for humility.

After all, birth rates have dropped faster than demographers anticipated. But one thing is clear: Technological advancements have the potential to raise the standard of living, free up time and allow people to pursue their dreams. For many, this means having children.

This article was originally published at Deseret News on 11/29/2025.

Summary: Despite widespread fears about the future—from apocalyptic collapse to resource depletion—human history shows a consistent pattern of progress and resilience. Time and again, predictions of disaster have been proven wrong by innovation and adaptation. Though challenges remain, the data clearly show that global living standards are rising—and that fear often lags behind reality.

Fear is one of the oldest and strongest human emotions. From the cradle to the grave, we are constantly afraid of something. For example, many of us fear the end of the world. For centuries, successive apocalypse dates, pointed out by self-proclaimed prophets, passed one by one—I’ve already lived through 30 such dates. Despite those predictions, doomsday fear is still widespread. In some surveys conducted in the West, more than 50 percent of respondents reported fearing the coming apocalypse.

In the 19th century, people commonly feared trains. Not only were they afraid of dying under the wheels of the speeding steel monster, but they were also afraid of the train ride itself. Scientists warned people that train travel was detrimental to one’s health; that one could develop nystagmus from staring at the flashing images outside the window and experience muscle pain from hours of relentless tension generated by traveling at unnaturally high speeds.

Folks also feared electricity. In 1889, for example, after several accidents occurred while men were repairing power line failures, almost all the power lines in New York City—which had been built with great difficulty—were dismantled.

We have also taken steps to abolish nuclear power based on the belief that it is a deadly threat. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster is often cited as irrefutable proof of that. Neither the fact that you can now safely take a tour of Chernobyl and have lunch in the former plant’s canteen, nor the scientific research showing that nuclear power is one of the safest sources of energy, is enough to convince the fearful to change their minds.

Some are still concerned that Earth is overpopulated and lacks sufficient resources for everyone. They heed the predictions of Thomas R. Malthus, an Anglican pastor who, in 1798, argued that unchecked population growth would lead to catastrophic food shortages. Malthus also wrote that the poor, the hungry, and the sick should not be helped, because if they survived and had more children, overpopulation and widespread famine would ensue.

At the same time, the public remains skeptical of the claims of the Danish economist Ester Boserup, who in 1965 claimed that we will never run out of food. In fact, she was right. We have been producing more food for centuries; we have newer and more efficient techniques of land cultivation and agricultural production, and the volume of production follows the demand for food.

Almost from the moment oil production began, we have been concerned that oil supplies would soon run out. Peak oil predictions have been made by American geologists in 1919, by geophysicist M. King Hubbert in 1956, by biologist Paul Ehrlich in 1968, and by environmentalist Donella Meadows in her famous book Limits to Growth in 1972, among others.

Nevertheless, in 2025, we’re producing more oil every year. In 2017, the United States once again became the world leader in oil production, even though oil production in the US was predicted to peak irreversibly as early as 1971.

Survey: Has global poverty increased or decreased over the past 20 years?

The greatest fear of all is the belief that the world is headed in the wrong direction and that the past was better than today. In a 2017 Ipsos international survey, 52 percent of respondents believed the level of poverty in the world had increased over the previous 20 years. Only 20 percent held the opposite, which is to say correct, view. In only one of the nearly 30 countries surveyed—China—did more people believe that the global situation was improving instead of worsening. Yet, no matter what indicators we use to measure the global standard of living, we can easily prove that humanity is living better and better.

Changes in living standards, 1997–2022

Everything is not perfect. After all, we have wars, terrorists, climate change, and so on. But when I ask any audience: “Who would like to magically move back to the world of a century ago, with no right to return to 2025?” there are no takers.

For more, see Wojciech Janicki’s book Fear/Less: Why Your Lifelong Fears Are Probably Groundless.