10 ms·

I think this way of looking at things is rather recent historically speaking, and may in fact be part of the antinatalist sentiment you are trying to refute. Gl

I think this way of looking at things is rather recent historically speaking, and may in fact be part of the antinatalist sentiment you are trying to refute. Globally, improved standards of living have decreased birthrates, not increased them. If the real reason was finances, this would not happen. I think you have to consider peoples' shifting priorities, and look at what is expected culturally. Look at our recent ancestors. There was a baby boom after WWII when times were good, but before then in the 1930s, people still had a net positive birthrate. This was true throughout our history except in the very worst of times. People simply prioritized having children. Children were the luxury. People were willing to have leaner times in order to have children. They were not considered a burden or a drain. They were a gift, for which a temporary sacrifice of small luxuries was considered worth it. One could argue that the increased availability of contraception was a big part of the cause, and that people wanted less children but couldn't achieve that. But really contraception was available long before birthrates started declining, and what changed most of all was cultural attitudes towards contraception.

paxys 4y ago
If you want to talk history, people would have 15-20 kids, 4 would survive to adulthood, and would be put to work in the fields to support the family. Daughters would often be abandoned or killed at birth because they were considered a burden. Developed countries have lower birth rates because (1) they don't need the extra labor and (2) more women have careers and don't want to keep popping out kids. None of it has anything to do with children being a "gift". Practical concerns have always and will always win out. We don't even need to speculate. Ask married couples in the US who are eager to start a family what they are waiting for, and better financial security will be #1 on the list.
- rthomas6 4y ago
  > We don't even need to speculate. Ask married couples in the US who are eager to start a family what they are waiting for, and better financial security will be #1 on the list. I understand this. My point was, almost every previous generation lived with objectively less financial security and a lower standard of living, and they still chose to have more children. We can't say people are more financially insecure than before. It just isn't true, on the whole. So, logically speaking, it must be true that those same concerns would often not have stopped this hypothetical couple's grandparents or great grandparents... Because they didn't. And I don't think you can say in good faith that they all had more children for monetary reasons like labor. Look at first generation immigrants from third world countries. They tend to have a ton more kids than the existing populace, while at the same time being much poorer than average. Then, by the 2nd (or 3rd) generation, that birthrate difference disappears completely. I bet if you were to ask this group why, they would talk about financial insecurity. But that didn't stop their parents (or grandparents), despite being much more financially insecure. So besides being more well off, what else changes between 1st and 3rd generation immigrants? Integration into the Western culture.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    We don't even need to look back into history, right here today poorer regions have higher birth rates. Ergo: A poorer society has more children. A richer society has fewer children. It's a phenomenon that continues to flabbergast me. Logic would seem to indicate that a more plentiful environment (a richer society) would lead to more children due to a surplus of life's necessities. But the reality is the exact opposite. I don't know why this is the case, but it's flabbergasting. It almost seems like evolution strives to eliminate those that find too much success.
    - travoltaj 4y ago
      Perhaps - 1) The people in the richer society are exposed to more ideas and options than the people in poorer societies, which makes them evaluate having/not having children vs "have them because everyone does it" 2) The people in richer societies have a social security net/wealth to fall back on in their old age, whereas the poorer societies are always "hand to mouth" without having the luxury of any retirement savings - all their time and energy goes just for basic survival - and they need children to support them in their old age.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        [flagged]
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      >Logic would seem to indicate that a more plentiful environment (a richer society) would lead to more children due to a surplus of life's necessities. Based on seeing my wife’s experience of pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding, without any complications, I would not agree the above statement. Based on speaking to my women members of my family, friends, and the data, it is evident that childbirth/child rearing is a costly undertaking, not measurable in any “normal” amount of money. So logically, I would expect women to have a couple kids (due to wanting to be mothers, or whatever), but each additional kid is at a very high marginal cost (on their body). I would posit poorer regions have higher birthrates simply because women lack the knowledge and power to obtain and use contraception. Even in poorer regions, giving women freedom (economic freedom and security such that they are deciding when to get pregnant), and access to contraception will make the birthrate drop.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
>But really contraception was available long before birthrates started declining, and what changed most of all was cultural attitudes towards contraception. The important statistic would be birthrates after women gained access to convenient and obtainable (cheap or subsidized) contraception. Did women really have access to effective contraception before the sharp drop in this graph? Or were they having kids because they did not have control over it? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA

paxys 4y ago

If you want to talk history, people would have 15-20 kids, 4 would survive to adulthood, and would be put to work in the fields to support the family. Daughters would often be abandoned or killed at birth because they were considered a burden. Developed countries have lower birth rates because (1) they don't need the extra labor and (2) more women have careers and don't want to keep popping out kids. None of it has anything to do with children being a "gift". Practical concerns have always and will always win out. We don't even need to speculate. Ask married couples in the US who are eager to start a family what they are waiting for, and better financial security will be #1 on the list.

rthomas6 4y ago
> We don't even need to speculate. Ask married couples in the US who are eager to start a family what they are waiting for, and better financial security will be #1 on the list. I understand this. My point was, almost every previous generation lived with objectively less financial security and a lower standard of living, and they still chose to have more children. We can't say people are more financially insecure than before. It just isn't true, on the whole. So, logically speaking, it must be true that those same concerns would often not have stopped this hypothetical couple's grandparents or great grandparents... Because they didn't. And I don't think you can say in good faith that they all had more children for monetary reasons like labor. Look at first generation immigrants from third world countries. They tend to have a ton more kids than the existing populace, while at the same time being much poorer than average. Then, by the 2nd (or 3rd) generation, that birthrate difference disappears completely. I bet if you were to ask this group why, they would talk about financial insecurity. But that didn't stop their parents (or grandparents), despite being much more financially insecure. So besides being more well off, what else changes between 1st and 3rd generation immigrants? Integration into the Western culture.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  We don't even need to look back into history, right here today poorer regions have higher birth rates. Ergo: A poorer society has more children. A richer society has fewer children. It's a phenomenon that continues to flabbergast me. Logic would seem to indicate that a more plentiful environment (a richer society) would lead to more children due to a surplus of life's necessities. But the reality is the exact opposite. I don't know why this is the case, but it's flabbergasting. It almost seems like evolution strives to eliminate those that find too much success.
  - travoltaj 4y ago
    Perhaps - 1) The people in the richer society are exposed to more ideas and options than the people in poorer societies, which makes them evaluate having/not having children vs "have them because everyone does it" 2) The people in richer societies have a social security net/wealth to fall back on in their old age, whereas the poorer societies are always "hand to mouth" without having the luxury of any retirement savings - all their time and energy goes just for basic survival - and they need children to support them in their old age.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      [flagged]
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    >Logic would seem to indicate that a more plentiful environment (a richer society) would lead to more children due to a surplus of life's necessities. Based on seeing my wife’s experience of pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding, without any complications, I would not agree the above statement. Based on speaking to my women members of my family, friends, and the data, it is evident that childbirth/child rearing is a costly undertaking, not measurable in any “normal” amount of money. So logically, I would expect women to have a couple kids (due to wanting to be mothers, or whatever), but each additional kid is at a very high marginal cost (on their body). I would posit poorer regions have higher birthrates simply because women lack the knowledge and power to obtain and use contraception. Even in poorer regions, giving women freedom (economic freedom and security such that they are deciding when to get pregnant), and access to contraception will make the birthrate drop.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

>But really contraception was available long before birthrates started declining, and what changed most of all was cultural attitudes towards contraception. The important statistic would be birthrates after women gained access to convenient and obtainable (cheap or subsidized) contraception. Did women really have access to effective contraception before the sharp drop in this graph? Or were they having kids because they did not have control over it? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA