3 ms·
It's yet another example of locally rational and globally irrational. 100 years ago you would have 5-10 kids and if one or two died, such is life. Today most fa
by arrosenberg 4y ago
It's yet another example of locally rational and globally irrational. 100 years ago you would have 5-10 kids and if one or two died, such is life. Today most families are 1-2 kids - the level of investment and risk is much more concentrated. It may be bad for kids generally, but each parent is (in a way) making a rational choice for their individual kid.
- jacquesm 4y agoPeople had that many children here in NL because of religious influence (= more souls for the church) and because they would lose one or two of them, almost guaranteed. It wasn't a matter of 'if'. Reduced influence of the church + much better medical understanding and vaccination for a lot of the infant killers as well as increased affluence has caused people to start having children later which already cuts off a whole chunk of offspring and fewer.
- makeitdouble 4y ago100 years ago was also around the two World Wars, and losing all of your 5-10 kids would widely happen. It wasn’t just kids, people dying was just part of life.
- drewcoo 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_brothers