4 ms·

I disagree with the second sentence in this assertion in the article you linked: "Perhaps less dramatically, anyone who lives in an urban center probably has fr

by laaph 9y ago

I disagree with the second sentence in this assertion in the article you linked: "Perhaps less dramatically, anyone who lives in an urban center probably has friends or acquaintances who have chosen not have children, simply because they prefer an epicurean lifestyle. This is not a phenomenon that occurs in the poorest countries in the world, but rather one that is unique to the wealthiest." Birth rates have been falling dramatically all over the world over the past 40 years, in rich and poor countries alike. It is true that the birth rate is still higher in poor countries than it is in rich countries. But even in poor countries, birth rates have dropped. You can go look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... and find your favorite poor country and see the changes. North Korea is just less than replacement rate, 2.0 children/woman. Cuba is 1.6 children per woman, well under replacement rate. Haiti went from 5.8 children per woman in 1970 to 3.0 in 2013. That kind of drop has been experienced around the world, in rich countries as well as poor countries. Pakistan is another example I commonly cite, going from 6.6 children/woman in 1970 to 3.8 in 2013 However, almost every poor country has been getting richer, so it might be hard to untangle the effects.

nyolfen 9y ago
lowered fertility is not the same as childlessness
Bartweiss 9y ago
I'm not clear on where the disagreement is here? I guess "unique to the wealthiest" is rather strong, but the claim made is pretty specific. The general explanation for falling fertility rates like '5 -> 3' is that it's mostly about falling infant mortality and improved birth control. People have more control over pregnancies and more confidence in the survival of their children, so they can achieve a small family with fewer births. That's a substantially different matter than being voluntarily childless. I admit I'm summoning up complexity here by claiming that 'N -> 2.1' has a different mechanism than '2.1 -> 1.46', and that there are some odd examples. North Korea I'd largely discount because famine warps birth rates, but Cuba is interesting. Presumably this is some of the same effects, but I'm not sure if there are very many people in Havana doing the "young and rich and childfree" thing with the same cultural markers. I'm actually not sure, I'd need someone more familiar with Cuban (or other) cultures to answer that.
- svachalek 9y ago
  How is improved birth control substantially different than being voluntarily childless?
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Improved birth control implies "prevents unwanted births". Some places without 'modern' birth control have low rates of unwanted pregnancy, but some places are pretty high. They both lower birth rates, but better birth control will only drop rates to "as many kids as people want to have", which is >0 for a lot of people. Voluntarily childless has a personal/psychological element - it's about not wanting a family in the first place - and can take personal birth rates down to 0.
- laaph 9y ago
  > I guess "unique to the wealthiest" is rather strong, but the claim made is pretty specific. That seemed to be the claim, and I still state this claim is false. Forgive me for nitpicking more, but most places with famines tend to still tend have large families, and arguably North Korea is an exception to that. Compare North Korea to the countries affected by 2011 drought in east Africa and the countries affected by 2012 Sahel drought. I'm not going to list every country but north African countries in general have far larger birth rates than east Asian countries. In terms of cultures, I've never been to Cuba, Haiti, or North Korea either, so I don't really know either. But my anecdotal experience of places I have been, there are a lot of people both who don't want children, but won't admit it, particularly not to their parents. And there are also a lot of people who do want children.
Hermel 9y ago
There are also plenty of examples that did not change as dramatically, for example Nigeria from 6.5 to 5.8 children per women. In fact, Nigeria is projected to have 400 million inhabitants by 2050, overtaking the US as well as Western Europe. Birth rates in Africa have declined a little, but not as fast as most models predicted.

by laaph 9y ago

nyolfen 9y ago

lowered fertility is not the same as childlessness

Bartweiss 9y ago

I'm not clear on where the disagreement is here? I guess "unique to the wealthiest" is rather strong, but the claim made is pretty specific. The general explanation for falling fertility rates like '5 -> 3' is that it's mostly about falling infant mortality and improved birth control. People have more control over pregnancies and more confidence in the survival of their children, so they can achieve a small family with fewer births. That's a substantially different matter than being voluntarily childless. I admit I'm summoning up complexity here by claiming that 'N -> 2.1' has a different mechanism than '2.1 -> 1.46', and that there are some odd examples. North Korea I'd largely discount because famine warps birth rates, but Cuba is interesting. Presumably this is some of the same effects, but I'm not sure if there are very many people in Havana doing the "young and rich and childfree" thing with the same cultural markers. I'm actually not sure, I'd need someone more familiar with Cuban (or other) cultures to answer that.

svachalek 9y ago
How is improved birth control substantially different than being voluntarily childless?
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Improved birth control implies "prevents unwanted births". Some places without 'modern' birth control have low rates of unwanted pregnancy, but some places are pretty high. They both lower birth rates, but better birth control will only drop rates to "as many kids as people want to have", which is >0 for a lot of people. Voluntarily childless has a personal/psychological element - it's about not wanting a family in the first place - and can take personal birth rates down to 0.
laaph 9y ago
> I guess "unique to the wealthiest" is rather strong, but the claim made is pretty specific. That seemed to be the claim, and I still state this claim is false. Forgive me for nitpicking more, but most places with famines tend to still tend have large families, and arguably North Korea is an exception to that. Compare North Korea to the countries affected by 2011 drought in east Africa and the countries affected by 2012 Sahel drought. I'm not going to list every country but north African countries in general have far larger birth rates than east Asian countries. In terms of cultures, I've never been to Cuba, Haiti, or North Korea either, so I don't really know either. But my anecdotal experience of places I have been, there are a lot of people both who don't want children, but won't admit it, particularly not to their parents. And there are also a lot of people who do want children.

Hermel 9y ago

There are also plenty of examples that did not change as dramatically, for example Nigeria from 6.5 to 5.8 children per women. In fact, Nigeria is projected to have 400 million inhabitants by 2050, overtaking the US as well as Western Europe. Birth rates in Africa have declined a little, but not as fast as most models predicted.