3 ms·

Looks like 5% in the 50s. High by modern standards, but not enough to imply a "we need to have 4 so at least one survives" scenario. And I'd say they're "unuse

Looks like 5% in the 50s. High by modern standards, but not enough to imply a "we need to have 4 so at least one survives" scenario. And I'd say they're "unused" not "useless". The question would be for instance on a subsidence farm, how much more crops can the work of a 10 year old create, vs how much resources they consume. My guess is that they're still a net cost.

Apocryphon 3y ago
The rearing costs were probably lower due to multigenerational households, elder siblings, and the entire community being involved.
Const-me 3y ago
> Looks like 5% in the 50s The data I have linked above shows infant mortality rate. I believe infant mortality is defined as “deaths during the first year of life”. I was unable to find data for child mortality in Japan. Still, I would expect it to be rather high in the 50-s Japan, and follow a similar trajectory. Here’s some chart which shows worldwide death rate for ages ≤ 5 years: https://assets.ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/global-child-mortality-timeseries.png https://assets.ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/global-chi... The figure was 36% in 1900, over 20% in 1950, and only 4% in modern world.