8 ms·

Perhaps they should reframe as the end of the cousin bubble? People had many kids before and yet many died from disease, childbirth, accidents, war, etc. Inbre

Perhaps they should reframe as the end of the cousin bubble? People had many kids before and yet many died from disease, childbirth, accidents, war, etc. Inbreeding and limited resources also meant it wasn't a party for much of human existence. After antibiotics, before birth control, and before moving far away were practical, there was a glut for a few generations. Now things are correcting.

pixl97 3y ago
If you're talking pre-1890 or so, the people would still have had more cousins than the latest generations. The population was still going up at that time, just slowly. When looking at countries like Japan you're talking about rapid depopulation after the older generations die. Even in the US population growth is mostly caused by migrants within 2 generations.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Industrial farming is a relatively new invention. Yet it didn't immediately deliver equal rights, contraception, or education for women. Doubtful we'll roll back any of those, even if the future of antibiotics may be in doubt. And before industrialization population gains from agriculture were limited; albeit significantly more than the hunter-gatherers. Yet it was the that lifestyle which dominated most of hominids' existence. So I'd argue population is reaching a peak, and that's not a bad thing.
jasonfarnon 3y ago
your premise that contemporary family sizes are approximating those pre-antibiotics is easily falsifiable.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Families may have been larger and smaller in various centuries, though before widespread agriculture it was significantly lower than the post-antibiotics generations in the 20th century. Natives in North America for example were known to wait 4+ years between children because their nomadic lifestyle demanded they be able to walk before having another. Regardless, doubtful we'll go back to hunting-gathering or to women without equal rights, education, or contraception.

pixl97 3y ago

If you're talking pre-1890 or so, the people would still have had more cousins than the latest generations. The population was still going up at that time, just slowly. When looking at countries like Japan you're talking about rapid depopulation after the older generations die. Even in the US population growth is mostly caused by migrants within 2 generations.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Industrial farming is a relatively new invention. Yet it didn't immediately deliver equal rights, contraception, or education for women. Doubtful we'll roll back any of those, even if the future of antibiotics may be in doubt. And before industrialization population gains from agriculture were limited; albeit significantly more than the hunter-gatherers. Yet it was the that lifestyle which dominated most of hominids' existence. So I'd argue population is reaching a peak, and that's not a bad thing.

jasonfarnon 3y ago

your premise that contemporary family sizes are approximating those pre-antibiotics is easily falsifiable.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Families may have been larger and smaller in various centuries, though before widespread agriculture it was significantly lower than the post-antibiotics generations in the 20th century. Natives in North America for example were known to wait 4+ years between children because their nomadic lifestyle demanded they be able to walk before having another. Regardless, doubtful we'll go back to hunting-gathering or to women without equal rights, education, or contraception.