3 ms·

> The avoidance of having children is almost entirely shaped by the cultural environment and not economic environment. Cultural factors are certainly a part of

> The avoidance of having children is almost entirely shaped by the cultural environment and not economic environment. Cultural factors are certainly a part of it, but probably mostly in the sense that we are (rightfully, I believe) far less willing to let children die young or get maimed. But economic factors are a huge thing; I don't know where you live that you thing young people "can afford practically an unlimited number of children", but in most of Europe and the USA it is in fact impossible for the bottom 50+% of young couples to even support themselves, not to mention a child, on a single income. And it's also very hard to raise a child 0-4 in a city while working full time+. > "Relying on an entire community" to raise children generally meant that children were raised mostly by themselves. No. Children, historically, after they became capable of roaming around, were raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc. Even when they were away from adults, they'd be roaming near the village in groups with older children.

MentalM 1mo ago
> we are (rightfully, I believe) far less willing to let children die young or get maimed. I don't think it matters at all. Of course, we are, but there is a huge gap between "not let children die young or get maimed" and what is happening with child raising now. > but in most of Europe and the USA bottom 50+% of young couples would have zero problems to support even 20 children per couple. How do I know it? Because in other parts of the world other people easily support like 5+ kids on 10+ times less amount of resources than this bottom 50% of young couples in the Europe and the USA have. So it is purely cultural phenomenon. > were raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc. No, they (generally) weren't raised that way. Historically, "raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc" mean that they were like 5% of the time "raising by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings", and other 95% of the time raising by themselves (and maybe by neighbor's dog, best case scenario) > Even when they were away from adults, they'd be roaming near the village in groups with older children. I mean right now there is zero problems to raise 20 children per couple this way in the cities. Except for the cultural perception.

MentalM 1mo ago

> we are (rightfully, I believe) far less willing to let children die young or get maimed. I don't think it matters at all. Of course, we are, but there is a huge gap between "not let children die young or get maimed" and what is happening with child raising now. > but in most of Europe and the USA bottom 50+% of young couples would have zero problems to support even 20 children per couple. How do I know it? Because in other parts of the world other people easily support like 5+ kids on 10+ times less amount of resources than this bottom 50% of young couples in the Europe and the USA have. So it is purely cultural phenomenon. > were raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc. No, they (generally) weren't raised that way. Historically, "raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc" mean that they were like 5% of the time "raising by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings", and other 95% of the time raising by themselves (and maybe by neighbor's dog, best case scenario) > Even when they were away from adults, they'd be roaming near the village in groups with older children. I mean right now there is zero problems to raise 20 children per couple this way in the cities. Except for the cultural perception.