3 ms·
Some interesting context to consider with stories like this one are that the overall (global!) picture is sub-replacement fertility. That suggests we're going t
by roenxi 2y ago
Some interesting context to consider with stories like this one are that the overall (global!) picture is sub-replacement fertility. That suggests we're going to see a big realignment where parents tend to come from cultures that promote children as it is hard to see why they wouldn't just outbreed everyone else.
I'm a little sad that I might not be around to see the results, but I assume the winner will be one of (1) a cultural approached like what the article describes, (2) renegotiating the social contract between men and women or (3) just people just having a really strong instinct to have children.
- RetroTechie 2y ago(2) It's known that generally, as a nation becomes more wealthy (and socially/technologically advanced), fertility tends to drop. Well-off populations have fewer kids. As you wrote: the vast majority of countries have already passed this point, or are heading there. That implies there's fewer kids to care for. And thus fewer stay-at-home parents needed. Even if classical gender roles stay the same. What will those now-not-parenting people do? All else the same, logical expectation: a large % of them adding themselves to the job market. Ok there's also smaller families. But juggling 1 kid & (parttime?) job is still easier than doing same with say 3..5 kids. In short: countries moving up the wealth/development ladder will logically cause traditional gender roles to shift. Probably no coincidence that it's usually less-developed countries where women are forced into traditional roles.