3 ms·
> Seems especially in modern societies the actual cost, effort required, and difficulty of finding a mate and raising children responsibly (e.g. so that they mi
by djrogers 9y ago
> Seems especially in modern societies the actual cost, effort required, and difficulty of finding a mate and raising children responsibly (e.g. so that they might also be in a position to have children if they desire) is much higher than it was in the past (hence the sharply declining birthrates in all modern nations).
No, not at all. Sociologists do not at all believe that declining birth rates are because its harder to raise kids. It’s never been easier! Healthcare in most of the developed world is taken care of for the majority of people, basic education is free, and food is so cheap and abundant you’d have to actively try to raise a malnourished child today.
The idea that delivering and raising a child was easier or cheaper 100,200, or 500 years ago is ludicrous.
- Someone 9y agoEven more so for women, especially regarding the “delivering” part. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/r/renaissance-childbirth/ http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/r/renaissance-childbir...: ”Pregnancy and childbirth were dangerous times in a woman's life, and most women wrote their wills once they knew they were pregnant”
- smallnamespace 9y agoIs it possible that human psychology and culture evolved in a world with difficult conscious control over reproduction, and while we have moved to a world where conscious control is relatively cheap and easy, our instincts and practices haven't adjusted yet to optimize reproductive fitness?
- smallnamespace 9y agoYet if that is the case, why do fewer and fewer people choose to raise families? Could it be that people perceive that status goods, like living in a good neighborhood, being able to send children to good schools, are just as important as supplying material needs, and no amount of economic growth will directly deliver relative social status, which is inherently zero sum?