4 ms·

Of course. The drive to have a child has nothing to do with economic stability and access to affordable housing, health care, food, schooling and the ability to

• Ygg2 5y ago
  Look at Africa. Lower economic and social stability. Higher fertility rates. I'm not sure if this is as another commenter points out due to "private old folks care" or due to the sheer survivability. Any species in dangerous environments has more offsprings than in less dangerous environments.
  • Ajay-p 5y ago
    Making babies reminds me of the meth epidemic: When you have no economic or social stability, no jobs, no education, and consequently no hope, sex like drugs becomes an escape.
• lalaland1125 5y ago
  Look at comparator countries in the EU with much better scores in all of those factors. Almost all of those countries are also suffering from declining birth rates as secularism increases. Most have much lower birth rates than the US. You could also look at the minimal long term fertility effects of pro birth legislation [1]. The material factors don't seem to be driving birth rates as much as many people seem to think. 1. https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-uncle-sam-boost-american-fertility https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-uncle-sam-boost-american-fert...
  • rich_sasha 5y ago
    While the argument is not implausible, the secularisation is part of such a huge societal change that it imho difficult to argue causation. A ton of things are changing about our societies, among them secularisation and drops in childbirth rates, is a more conservative view. For example, increasing female access to career development probably drops child birth rates. Is that in itself driven by secularisation? I don’t think directly. And indirectly, everything is related.
• matzab 5y ago
  The corollary is, that opposition to birth control while ignoring all the other factors you mentioned plays a huge role here - to the detriment of those involved, I would argue.
• Geee 5y ago
  Yet, the poorest countries have the highest birth rates. People used to have bigger families when times were actually hard.
  • watwut 5y ago
    And when they did not had contraception and when kids started to work fairly soon. Even without contraception, in war time, famine, etc, people tend to have less kids.
• dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The drive to have a child has nothing to do with economic stability and access to affordable housing, health care, food, schooling and the ability to have a good enough work/life balance that allows a parent to actually participate to the children’s education and development. It doesn't though; its been the consistent finding for many decades that, in the developed world, better economic security and stronger public social support networks predict lower fertility. Children are a (unreliable, though, so it takes several to have a good chance of success if they are used this way) private old-age & disability support system.
  • eecc 5y ago
    Ouch, that’s so callous I hope you’re joking. The OP was actually arguing: > The fundamental issue here is incentives. Raising children is a lot of work and a secular worldview doesn't really provide a strong incentive. In other words, current youth is too busy with their avocados and lattes to think about breeding (“for the Fatherland” I guess, given the tone.) Which is a laughable argument, as much as -although opposite in spirit - your own “I breed children so someone will change my diapers someday”. But by all means, don’t bother having children. You’d make a terrible parent.
• rayiner 5y ago
  Young people today are vastly better off than young people were in 1950, when food insecurity was higher and things like Medicaid, the ACA, etc., didn’t exist. And birth rates are even lower in European countries with robust safety nets. “Hedonistic godless culture” seems like a good candidate for the problem, or maybe BPA or phenols or something like that.
  • watwut 5y ago
    In 1950, the birth control was not all that much accessible and even illegal in plenty of places. Whole lot of women and men were in less of position to control when and how many kids they have. Also, USA had post WWII massive economic boom.
  • lkrubner 5y ago
    Wages for men under the age of 25 peaked in 1958. Afterwards, the loss of good paying low-skill agricultural and industrial jobs lowered wages for the young. Wages went up on average but only because wages for skilled jobs went up dramatically after 1958. Strong labor unions helped with that. 1958 was the all time peak year for the ratio of average wage to average rent, people were paying just 22% of the average wage on the average rent. This was also the peak year of the Baby Boom, partly because the rents were so cheap and it was so very easy for an 18 year old male to graduate from high school, get married and get his own place. In economic ways 1958 might have been the best year ever to be a young male, at least for whites. My oldest brother was born in 1957. My parents didn’t have health insurance so my dad had to pay cash. The bill was $40. Health insurance was less important when hospital prices were so cheap.
• watwut 5y ago
  > Bah… never expected such a comment here Honestly, why? The religion cures social problems, traditional family with one income and homeschooling are pretty prevalent on HN.
• zpeti 5y ago
  You are completely wrong. It's the other way. The numbers prove it every time. As economic wellbeing and freedom increase, birth rates decline.