5 ms·

While the article mainly focuses on France, the world is mostly looking at China after its one-child-policy as the greatest example. France is a good example fo

While the article mainly focuses on France, the world is mostly looking at China after its one-child-policy as the greatest example. France is a good example for other things though. Its extremely pro-pension policies makes it very hostile against the young. Both countries at either end of the world were spending their time breeding babies to try to feed them 50 years later.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I do not see why history would be a good indicator for the article’s question anyway. The fact that birth control is easily and nearly freely available and women have gained economic independence is a big factor.
- klipt 5y ago
  If you think about it this suggests a strong selective pressure for religious communities that consider birth control sinful.
  - noofen 5y ago
    It also suggests a strong selective pressure for uneducated, unproductive communities that do nothing but breed, take welfare, and vote.
  - peterburkimsher 5y ago
    It's a little more complicated than that: not all religious groups consider all forms of birth control to be sinful, and these trends don't apply in all countries. Increased religiosity won't necessarily increase the birth rate. Disclosure: my mum, Marion Burkimsher, is a demographic researcher specialising in this area. She's also studied fertility of migrants (the TFR statistics are skewed). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marion_Burkimsher/publication/338966806_Investigating_Family_Size_Differentials_by_Religiosity_Across_Europe_National_Contexts_Expectations_and_Outcomes/links/5ebbc512458515626ca5ae4f/Investigating-Family-Size-Differentials-by-Religiosity-Across-Europe-National-Contexts-Expectations-and-Outcomes.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marion_Burkimsher/publi...
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-with-no-religion-are-projected-to-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-... People who identify as secular have about 1 fewer child per couple when compared to the same local averages.
- xf1cf 5y ago
  I would imagine birth control plays some part. But the economic independence argument I think is the larger factor. Before I get accused of sexism or whatever consider the actual economics of child rearing. 50 years ago assets weren't rapidly inflating and college degrees weren't required for a decent middle class living. The middle class has the best opportunity for raising children successfully (good education, good health, etc). The trade off? Someone has to stay home and tend to the house. It really doesn't matter who does, honestly, but historically this was the woman. The feminists will spin women entering the workforce as empowering. Indeed, it is. But as a result birth rates decline rapidly. The shirking of that traditional role means child care must be offloaded somewhere. Several family members with children have told me that pre-K daycare at a decent, but not great, daycare runs anywhere between $800-$2000 a month. Absurdly expensive. Ignoring the actual _cost_ of having the child, taking care of the child before you can offload that responsibility onto the education system is prohibitive for all but the upper classes these days. These upper class people don't often have children. The alternative is to return to the old system but that requires one income to support a house. If you're not clearing six figures this might not even be possible in all but the most remote parts of the country. This combined with rapid asset inflation means that in reality women entering the workforce wasn't for "empowerment" but rather necessity. With the price of goods going up every single year it's no longer feasible in most parts of the country to have one person stay home. The result? People have less kids. I have no solution to this really. No amount of maternity/paternity leave, pay raises, etc will fix it. We can probably place the blame squarely on the big banks and the federal reserve. But, how do you bring wages back in line so that people can afford to have kids?
Animats 5y ago
World is mostly looking at China after its one-child-policy as the greatest example. China's one-child policy was a success. They were able to put on the brakes during the period between health care getting good and standard of living going up, which is when population goes way up. India didn't do that, and their population shot up beyond the country's water supply. France is just leveling off. Japan is in actual decline. China: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population India: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/population France: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FRA/france/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FRA/france/population Japan: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Let's wait to see which country, between China and India, can fare better over the next 60 years of economic development. India might not have enough water now but the raw material for solving any problem is found in problem solvers, not the ground.
  - lorlou 5y ago
    The way things stand now, there's like zero evidence that India is doing or may ever do better than China in any regard.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      India has more working-age people and is facing less of a population cliff than most countries. Whatever problems can be solved by workers, they will be in a better position to solve than anyone else. The US has immigration, India accomplishes the same thing but in one country instead of two continents.
      - stephc_int13 5y ago
        China and India already had large populations compared to the western world, two centuries ago, and yet they were not doing better from an economic or military standpoint.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

I do not see why history would be a good indicator for the article’s question anyway. The fact that birth control is easily and nearly freely available and women have gained economic independence is a big factor.

klipt 5y ago
If you think about it this suggests a strong selective pressure for religious communities that consider birth control sinful.
- noofen 5y ago
  It also suggests a strong selective pressure for uneducated, unproductive communities that do nothing but breed, take welfare, and vote.
- peterburkimsher 5y ago
  It's a little more complicated than that: not all religious groups consider all forms of birth control to be sinful, and these trends don't apply in all countries. Increased religiosity won't necessarily increase the birth rate. Disclosure: my mum, Marion Burkimsher, is a demographic researcher specialising in this area. She's also studied fertility of migrants (the TFR statistics are skewed). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marion_Burkimsher/publication/338966806_Investigating_Family_Size_Differentials_by_Religiosity_Across_Europe_National_Contexts_Expectations_and_Outcomes/links/5ebbc512458515626ca5ae4f/Investigating-Family-Size-Differentials-by-Religiosity-Across-Europe-National-Contexts-Expectations-and-Outcomes.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marion_Burkimsher/publi...
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-with-no-religion-are-projected-to-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-... People who identify as secular have about 1 fewer child per couple when compared to the same local averages.
xf1cf 5y ago
I would imagine birth control plays some part. But the economic independence argument I think is the larger factor. Before I get accused of sexism or whatever consider the actual economics of child rearing. 50 years ago assets weren't rapidly inflating and college degrees weren't required for a decent middle class living. The middle class has the best opportunity for raising children successfully (good education, good health, etc). The trade off? Someone has to stay home and tend to the house. It really doesn't matter who does, honestly, but historically this was the woman. The feminists will spin women entering the workforce as empowering. Indeed, it is. But as a result birth rates decline rapidly. The shirking of that traditional role means child care must be offloaded somewhere. Several family members with children have told me that pre-K daycare at a decent, but not great, daycare runs anywhere between $800-$2000 a month. Absurdly expensive. Ignoring the actual _cost_ of having the child, taking care of the child before you can offload that responsibility onto the education system is prohibitive for all but the upper classes these days. These upper class people don't often have children. The alternative is to return to the old system but that requires one income to support a house. If you're not clearing six figures this might not even be possible in all but the most remote parts of the country. This combined with rapid asset inflation means that in reality women entering the workforce wasn't for "empowerment" but rather necessity. With the price of goods going up every single year it's no longer feasible in most parts of the country to have one person stay home. The result? People have less kids. I have no solution to this really. No amount of maternity/paternity leave, pay raises, etc will fix it. We can probably place the blame squarely on the big banks and the federal reserve. But, how do you bring wages back in line so that people can afford to have kids?

Animats 5y ago

World is mostly looking at China after its one-child-policy as the greatest example. China's one-child policy was a success. They were able to put on the brakes during the period between health care getting good and standard of living going up, which is when population goes way up. India didn't do that, and their population shot up beyond the country's water supply. France is just leveling off. Japan is in actual decline. China: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population India: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/population France: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FRA/france/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FRA/france/population Japan: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population

whatshisface 5y ago
Let's wait to see which country, between China and India, can fare better over the next 60 years of economic development. India might not have enough water now but the raw material for solving any problem is found in problem solvers, not the ground.
- lorlou 5y ago
  The way things stand now, there's like zero evidence that India is doing or may ever do better than China in any regard.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    India has more working-age people and is facing less of a population cliff than most countries. Whatever problems can be solved by workers, they will be in a better position to solve than anyone else. The US has immigration, India accomplishes the same thing but in one country instead of two continents.
    - stephc_int13 5y ago
      China and India already had large populations compared to the western world, two centuries ago, and yet they were not doing better from an economic or military standpoint.