3 ms·
That is because a woman’s cost of having a child is roughly the same across all cultures. Not just the biological costs and risks of pregnancy/childbirth/breas
by lotsofpulp 1y ago
That is because a woman’s cost of having a child is roughly the same across all cultures.
Not just the biological costs and risks of pregnancy/childbirth/breastfeeding/infant rearing, but the financial cost that forces most to give up independence and have to rely on and compromise with someone else.
If I was a woman, I could see having one kid, maybe two kids. Having 3 kids? Absolutely out of the question. I would never expect anyone to do what I saw my wife do (relatively uncomplicated pregnancies with secure finances) 3 or more times.
And that is generally what you see, very few women having 3+ kids, and most with 0, 1, or 2. The large proportion of 0s and 1s really drags the TFR down to below replacement rate.
- rayiner 1y ago> but the financial cost that forces most to give up independence and have to rely on and compromise with someone else Yeah, that’s the natural state of human existence. That you say that as if it’s something obviously detrimental is bizarre.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoI am not saying it is bizarre, I am saying people try to avoid it because it reduces their power (obviously). It is the "natural" state when people don't have power, i.e. they don't have a choice. The change seen in the last 10 to 20 decades is what happens when people do have the power, i.e. they have the choice. What is natural or bizarre is merely a function of circumstance.