4 ms·

It's a sign of wealth and abundance if fertility rates are falling. See Africa and it's still very high rates and every single historic trend line as evidence.

It's a sign of wealth and abundance if fertility rates are falling. See Africa and it's still very high rates and every single historic trend line as evidence. Strongest causation factors are urbanization and female education/employment. East Asia urbanized faster then the US, also has little to no immigration ... hence populations will shrink quite drastically. China will halve in what, the next 5 decades?

xupybd 4y ago
The one child policy played a big role as well
jeffbee 4y ago
Between countries, fertility is associated with poverty. But within countries, it’s the opposite. Higher fertility comes along with wealth and well-being. So if the rich, educated people in your advanced society are not reproducing, that’s a bad indication.
- unmole 4y ago
  > But within countries, it’s the opposite. Higher fertility comes along with wealth and well-being [citation needed]
- Tozen 4y ago
  Lot's of people get that backwards. Because people have money and could afford a lot of children, doesn't meant they want a lot of children. Once they have become used to a certain lifestyle, the money can be freedom, in terms of having less responsibilities and living carefree. Having children can negate the free time or lifestyle they want to live.
trefoiled 4y ago
If it's a sign of wealth and abundance that fertility rates are falling, how do you explain that fertility rates are falling in the poorest areas of Africa, too?[1] [1]. https://www.afd.fr/en/actualites/dramatic-drop-fertility-across-africa https://www.afd.fr/en/actualites/dramatic-drop-fertility-acr...
- wahern 4y ago
  Even the poorest areas of Africa are considerably wealthier than they were 30 years ago. While the West, and the U.S. in particular, was immersed in post-Cold War glow, then 9/11, Iraq, 2008 crisis, ISIS, etc, the erstwhile non-industrialized world was wholly transformed.
  - medvezhenok 4y ago
    France was still pretty poor in the 18th century with a falling fertility rate... https://worksinprogress.co/issue/frances-baby-bust#:~:text=Using%20this%20genealogical%20data%2C%20I,in%20less%20than%2040%20years https://worksinprogress.co/issue/frances-baby-bust#:~:text=U....
mxkopy 4y ago
> historic trend line as evidence What history? The last 50 years or so? That's barely a recollection of yesterday's meal by anthropic standards. You're confusing westernization for wealth. The two are correlated by coincidence.
tannhauser23 4y ago
Yeah when it falls from 10 kids per couple to 2-3. But not when it falls below 1, which is what happened in South Korea: "Kim, a product designer and art instructor, calls her hopes of one day having children "just a fantasy" — especially now, when housing costs are soaring, the job market is oversaturated and marriage rates are plummeting." Doesn't sound like wealth and abundance to me.
- shadowtree 4y ago
  Kim would not have been literate and utterly dependent on marriage to survive not that long ago. Now she is a web designer and has choices .. in dating, housing, etc. Complaints are not desperation. From 1960 to 2021 the population of South Korea increased from 25 million to 52 million people ... 107% in 61 years! Over 80% percent of Koreans live in larger cities now, just mind-boggling urbanization.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    Below a certain amount of wealth, you need kids to take care of you when you are older. Within a certain range (and better safety nets for elderly than for children), you can take care of yourself but not kids. Above that range, you can have kids aplenty.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Hypothesis%20Contrary%20to%20Fact.html https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Hypothesis%20Contrar...
  - kerpotgh 4y ago
    The former situation is better for everyone involved.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Does Kim have her own job? Does she get to choose her own dating partners? Does she have to settle for some drunk guy who beats her? Does she worry about going hungry? Kim has wealth and abundance. She just refuses to make the sacrifices necessary to have children like people did in the old days, where women didn't work and were basically property of their husbands. The "problem" these days is that women want to be treated as equals and have a nice life and be able to control the direction of their lives, instead of just marrying whatever shitty guy they can get just so they can survive. The byproduct of that is that the birthrate is much, much lower.
rayiner 4y ago
> Strongest causation factors are urbanization and female education/employment. There's a general trend, yes, but the details are important. The total fertility rate for native-born American women was near replacement as recently as 2008.
tr_user 4y ago
That's great, we should all stop having children so everyone can be richer. Maybe the last person on earth would reconsider if they want to split their wealth with anyone or if they want to die as the richest of all time.

xupybd 4y ago

The one child policy played a big role as well

jeffbee 4y ago

Between countries, fertility is associated with poverty. But within countries, it’s the opposite. Higher fertility comes along with wealth and well-being. So if the rich, educated people in your advanced society are not reproducing, that’s a bad indication.

unmole 4y ago
> But within countries, it’s the opposite. Higher fertility comes along with wealth and well-being [citation needed]
Tozen 4y ago
Lot's of people get that backwards. Because people have money and could afford a lot of children, doesn't meant they want a lot of children. Once they have become used to a certain lifestyle, the money can be freedom, in terms of having less responsibilities and living carefree. Having children can negate the free time or lifestyle they want to live.

trefoiled 4y ago

If it's a sign of wealth and abundance that fertility rates are falling, how do you explain that fertility rates are falling in the poorest areas of Africa, too?[1] [1]. https://www.afd.fr/en/actualites/dramatic-drop-fertility-across-africa https://www.afd.fr/en/actualites/dramatic-drop-fertility-acr...

wahern 4y ago
Even the poorest areas of Africa are considerably wealthier than they were 30 years ago. While the West, and the U.S. in particular, was immersed in post-Cold War glow, then 9/11, Iraq, 2008 crisis, ISIS, etc, the erstwhile non-industrialized world was wholly transformed.
- medvezhenok 4y ago
  France was still pretty poor in the 18th century with a falling fertility rate... https://worksinprogress.co/issue/frances-baby-bust#:~:text=Using%20this%20genealogical%20data%2C%20I,in%20less%20than%2040%20years https://worksinprogress.co/issue/frances-baby-bust#:~:text=U....

mxkopy 4y ago

> historic trend line as evidence What history? The last 50 years or so? That's barely a recollection of yesterday's meal by anthropic standards. You're confusing westernization for wealth. The two are correlated by coincidence.

tannhauser23 4y ago

Yeah when it falls from 10 kids per couple to 2-3. But not when it falls below 1, which is what happened in South Korea: "Kim, a product designer and art instructor, calls her hopes of one day having children "just a fantasy" — especially now, when housing costs are soaring, the job market is oversaturated and marriage rates are plummeting." Doesn't sound like wealth and abundance to me.

shadowtree 4y ago
Kim would not have been literate and utterly dependent on marriage to survive not that long ago. Now she is a web designer and has choices .. in dating, housing, etc. Complaints are not desperation. From 1960 to 2021 the population of South Korea increased from 25 million to 52 million people ... 107% in 61 years! Over 80% percent of Koreans live in larger cities now, just mind-boggling urbanization.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  Below a certain amount of wealth, you need kids to take care of you when you are older. Within a certain range (and better safety nets for elderly than for children), you can take care of yourself but not kids. Above that range, you can have kids aplenty.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Hypothesis%20Contrary%20to%20Fact.html https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Hypothesis%20Contrar...
- kerpotgh 4y ago
  The former situation is better for everyone involved.
midoridensha 4y ago
Does Kim have her own job? Does she get to choose her own dating partners? Does she have to settle for some drunk guy who beats her? Does she worry about going hungry? Kim has wealth and abundance. She just refuses to make the sacrifices necessary to have children like people did in the old days, where women didn't work and were basically property of their husbands. The "problem" these days is that women want to be treated as equals and have a nice life and be able to control the direction of their lives, instead of just marrying whatever shitty guy they can get just so they can survive. The byproduct of that is that the birthrate is much, much lower.

rayiner 4y ago

> Strongest causation factors are urbanization and female education/employment. There's a general trend, yes, but the details are important. The total fertility rate for native-born American women was near replacement as recently as 2008.

tr_user 4y ago

That's great, we should all stop having children so everyone can be richer. Maybe the last person on earth would reconsider if they want to split their wealth with anyone or if they want to die as the richest of all time.