4 ms·

I don't think population control in the 60s is the issue now, rather like in North America, the way life and work is structured is not conducive to raising a fa

I don't think population control in the 60s is the issue now, rather like in North America, the way life and work is structured is not conducive to raising a family, and so many people have opted out of that.

Supermancho 4y ago
Linear optimization within capitalism. Finding the most reliable path to success. I am left with no family.
tptacek 4y ago
The sharpest drop in the US birth rate came after the baby boom, from 1960 to 1980, and was almost certainly a product of changing norms rather than economic pressure.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The sharpest drop in the US birth rate came after the baby boom, from 1960 to 1980, and was almost certainly a product of changing norms rather than economic pressure. Economic conditions are a powerful factor in shaping norms, though in industrialized countries economic stability and stronger social safety nets are associated with reduced birthrates, “economic pressure” is thus more likely to be the opposite of the explanation.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I mean, in the sense that the birth rate used to be enormous because children were part of the subsistence farming labor force, yes. But the norm change here is pretty clear, and pretty clearly not a product of economic pressure; I'm being careful with my words so as not to set the thread off on a bleak tangent.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      Subsistence farming has been a marginal activity even in colonial North America, and that was even more true in United States. It was mostly restricted to native Americans. The rest were overwhelmingly engaged in market farming, not subsistence — either as owners, hired laborers, or slaves. In any case, by 1960, US society was overwhelmingly urbanized, and subsistence farming has faded from living memory.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        I'm just saying that if you look at the birth rate chart, the further away you get from modernity, the higher the birth rate goes. Substitute whichever more accurate words you prefer.
        xyzzyz 4y ago
        This might seem like nitpicking, but it is hugely important distinction for people interested in demographics. The simple fact is that societies engaged in subsistence farming are, in fact, stable instead of growing, and their TFR is not very far from 2. This has been true about, say, most of pre 1800s Europe, or pre 1900s sub Saharan Africa, but has not been true about North America for last 400 years until very recently.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > I mean, in the sense that the birth rate used to be enormous because children were part of the subsistence farming labor force, yes. No, its true among countries in the developed West, both across countries at the same time and within countries over time, without subsistence farming being a significant factor. There's theory as to why speculating in the role of family as disability/unemployment/old age support being more critical with relatively weaker social support networks and less so with stronger ones. (My personal pet speculatio is that its more subrational, and that humans are loosely biologically programmed in a way that generalized insecurity — perhaps signalled through accummulated effext of stress hormones — mitigates the degree to which humans are inclined to K-strategy in reproduction, and that’s an important factor in adaptability to environmental change on timescales shorter than evolution; lots of things in nature have a stress/reproduction response like that.)
rayiner 4y ago
No, in Asia the population control efforts started back in the 1930s and 1940s. Japan’s birth rate has already dropped to replacement levels by the time the birth control pill became prevalent in the 60s and 70s.

Supermancho 4y ago

Linear optimization within capitalism. Finding the most reliable path to success. I am left with no family.

tptacek 4y ago

The sharpest drop in the US birth rate came after the baby boom, from 1960 to 1980, and was almost certainly a product of changing norms rather than economic pressure.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> The sharpest drop in the US birth rate came after the baby boom, from 1960 to 1980, and was almost certainly a product of changing norms rather than economic pressure. Economic conditions are a powerful factor in shaping norms, though in industrialized countries economic stability and stronger social safety nets are associated with reduced birthrates, “economic pressure” is thus more likely to be the opposite of the explanation.
- tptacek 4y ago
  I mean, in the sense that the birth rate used to be enormous because children were part of the subsistence farming labor force, yes. But the norm change here is pretty clear, and pretty clearly not a product of economic pressure; I'm being careful with my words so as not to set the thread off on a bleak tangent.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    Subsistence farming has been a marginal activity even in colonial North America, and that was even more true in United States. It was mostly restricted to native Americans. The rest were overwhelmingly engaged in market farming, not subsistence — either as owners, hired laborers, or slaves. In any case, by 1960, US society was overwhelmingly urbanized, and subsistence farming has faded from living memory.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      I'm just saying that if you look at the birth rate chart, the further away you get from modernity, the higher the birth rate goes. Substitute whichever more accurate words you prefer.
      - xyzzyz 4y ago
        This might seem like nitpicking, but it is hugely important distinction for people interested in demographics. The simple fact is that societies engaged in subsistence farming are, in fact, stable instead of growing, and their TFR is not very far from 2. This has been true about, say, most of pre 1800s Europe, or pre 1900s sub Saharan Africa, but has not been true about North America for last 400 years until very recently.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I mean, in the sense that the birth rate used to be enormous because children were part of the subsistence farming labor force, yes. No, its true among countries in the developed West, both across countries at the same time and within countries over time, without subsistence farming being a significant factor. There's theory as to why speculating in the role of family as disability/unemployment/old age support being more critical with relatively weaker social support networks and less so with stronger ones. (My personal pet speculatio is that its more subrational, and that humans are loosely biologically programmed in a way that generalized insecurity — perhaps signalled through accummulated effext of stress hormones — mitigates the degree to which humans are inclined to K-strategy in reproduction, and that’s an important factor in adaptability to environmental change on timescales shorter than evolution; lots of things in nature have a stress/reproduction response like that.)

rayiner 4y ago

No, in Asia the population control efforts started back in the 1930s and 1940s. Japan’s birth rate has already dropped to replacement levels by the time the birth control pill became prevalent in the 60s and 70s.