3 ms·
Children are massively more expensive, and less useful, in richer societies. I don't think anybody in Japan would be allowed to provide for their children the s
by whatshisface 3y ago
Children are massively more expensive, and less useful, in richer societies. I don't think anybody in Japan would be allowed to provide for their children the standards of care provided in a country with a growing population. As for the second point, if you are a farmer in a country with little physical mobility, your children are your retirement savings. If you live in America, your children are future employees of a company ten states away.
I read a statistic somewhere that it costs $2M to raise a child. Considering that it's considered a horrible imposition to ask your kids for money, or even to ask them to take care of you, it's easy to explain why urbanization, industrial development, and education, work against population growth.
- jojobas 3y ago"Useful" is subjective. Somehow a billion-year-old imperative to continue your bloodline by all costs faded to nothing in many people. Go figure.
- justahuman74 3y agoThat's ok, it'll only take a couple of generations for the people who don't feel the drive to have kids to be out of the gene pool. Then the next baby boom begins.
- whatshisface 3y agoThe imperative to continue your bloodline never existed. For one thing, animals have no concept of ancestry.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sebmellen 3y agoEvery living being exists because of the innate drive of its direct ancestors to procreate.
- em-bee 3y agosome animals that live in groups where the leader gets to do all the mating, if a new leader emerges, he will kill all the offsprings of the old leader. i'd say that this is a clear sign that animals do have strong biological drive to care about continuing their bloodline