One of best example is USSR. From whoping 7 kids per female during Tsarist Russia to below 2 after just 60 years
Because resources become scarce.
>>10840936Because density you worthless retard. Population=rainfall and many countries like Bangladesh had falling education rates during the fertility fall.
>>10840936Lots of reasons. To name a few:>better technology makes life easier and makes people more complacent (for example dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, air conditioning)>and provides better distractions and entertainment (for example television, internet, video games, smartphones, etc)>birth control methods became widely available (mass marketed pills, condoms, abortion clinics, and so on)>societal philosophy and culture changed (no more "be fruitful and multiply" directive, women no longer praised for having lots of kids, now it's "have as much fun as you can and maybe 1 or 2 kids if you feel like it when you're old," also no arranged marriages and society is more atomized, so much less social pressure to conform)>more sedentary lifestyles, people generally work by sitting around all day now, so they become more depressed and overweight>processed foods filled with bullshit filler and then loaded with corn syrup and grease and salt to make it taste better, as well as being mass marketed, like McDonald's and bagged snacks, exacerbate the obesity and depression issues and cause men to have lower testosterone, lower sex drive, erectile dysfunction and become less attractive to womenAnd I could go on.
>>10841099Utterly moronic response the high fertility counties are low density.
>>10840988EE is scarcely populated to this day
>>10841103>>10841099>>10840988>>10840963It's literally just women getting more rights and being able to provide for themselves that is literally it
>>10841112shut the fuck up schizo
>>10841117It's literally just rainfall and density which is really just density but some of you guys are dumb so I have to add rainfall. Even though density is the same
>>10840936Urbanization brings a greater diversity of high skilled jobs, which tend to require longer and more specialized education.Historically, in rural areas, it was permissible for a child to get away with far less institutional learning. The skills they needed to navigate their world were predominantly built up through experience and while a local school might teach them reading and arithmetic, they were unlikely to be taught how to run a farm or fix a tractor. That kind of knowledge would come from family, friends, or community. Although this required a large time investment from their parents, it typically was more cost effective, especially as those children could become useful workers even in adolescence. With urbanization, it's simply no longer possible to maintain this scheme if you want your children to fully capitalize on the new environment. Someone who never went to high school is unlikely to acquire the skills they need to work as a stock broker for instance, not to mention the qualifications their competitors might have. Parents who want the best for their kids are probably in for the long haul and that means supporting them with education and housing up until possibly their mid 20s and beyond. That's extremely expensive, luxurious even. So of course it's no longer feasible for people to have children the way they used to.
>>10841228Your entire rambling repetitive and mostly redundant and already mentioned points can be summed up in a single word that the post cooldown is preventing me from saying.Density
>>10841228The lack of highly specialized industries in rural areas also made children more valuable in the long-run. For example, as an elderly parent, you're unlikely to have access to the well trained professional medical carers in the city, so your children are generally required to take on this role to some extent. With multiple kids, the work is dispersed and less burdensome. It's also more personal being taken care of by someone you know and love.With urbanization, there are more professionals which specialize in this kind of work and have skills far beyond what your generalist children could hope to have. So their usefulness in this area is reduced also.
>>10841253Capitalism was never profitable nobody cares about survival or rational behavior
>>10841108what does electrical engineering have to with this?
So when humans live in agricultural state children become a resource. They add hands to labor and having more kids is not a burden. Technically speaking they are more mouths to feed but bc everyone was a farmer back then. It made no difference. They worked the land and when they found a wife they also had 6 kids as well. But with industrialization, kids became a burden. They cost money to keep alive. You maybe spent 1,000 a kid back in agricultural societies and easy to shelter them and educate them since you did everything for them. But yeah, every culture that experienced industrialization also experienced population drops and fertility drops. One guy mentioned more competition for resources. He is right in one way. There are 7 billion people on earth competing for cars and houses and land and jobs and health care and parking and goods and services. You have to is fine there is a giant strain on supply right now and won't go away for another 40 years after the boomer generation dies.
>>10841288Even if there was rational behavior the actual constraint would be density and would be filled by morons
>>10841288The sharpest drop in fertility rate for Britain roughly occurred between 1880 and 1920, well after the advent of industrialization. There's more going on and I think it's to do with the increases in quality of life that started occurring after the industrial class became entrenched and won certain rights.
>>10841360It's because density. This is really obvious. You guys are really dumb.
>>10841375Shut the fuck up retard, favela monkeys have like 10 kids and live in dense as fuck cities.It's because the buying power has been reduced and the cost of living increased, those who are in the so called "Middle class" have to choose between increasing their competitivity (specialization, postponing reproduction, abortion, etc) or losing their social class.Density doesn't cut, no matter how cool you wanna look retard, because when people moved from the fields to the city, the density was the same, but the workforce offer was almost exclusively males, this is because the system operated under the familial unit, once that unit was no longer efficient, women entered the workforce progressively each decade, and alongside technological advances, wages plummeted while the costs increased.Density doesn't fucking cut it, otherwise it wouldn't make sense for poor people to concentrate in cities, exactly it's because capital and opportunities concentrated in places with enough infrastructure, and those who own the capital shilled for the exodus to the cities, at one point the tables turned and the offer surpassed the need, increasing all costs of living while making wages go down. In this sense i would argue "Density" as you call it, is simply a simptom.
>>10840936Children are an asset in a rural setting but a liability in an urban one. They can work the fields for free from a young age. Urban kids cost a lot to raise in relative terms because they don't contribute monetarilyAlso industrial societies set up social support systems for elderly people. Social security in a preindustrial rural society was literally your kids. Having more meant you'd be better off in your retirement years
>>10841774It's just density. All your other crap is gibberish. You guys are just seriously stupid.>something is obviously density>you say it's not
children aren't appraised as free labor
>>10841788Also its physically impossible for any factor besides density to matter
>>10840936Because they become expensive and no longer give back as much as they take.
>>10840936Children have become a much larger investment since there is far more needed to increase the chance they will succeed meaning having more kids just divides the time and energy you have, there is even less incentive since most developed states have some form of social security for those who are retired meaning you don't have to rely on that many kids to keep you around during your final years
>>10841790can you shut the fuck up you schizo fuck, take your meds already
>>10842330>le-le-le sc-ch-chizo b-b-boogeymancry harder you little bitch
Well, it used to be in most places that when a young man would meet a girl he would have strong feelings for, he would try to get her pregnant as quickly as possible.But now, those same men who are raising families are the first to run to the factories if they can because they are desired for their intelligence and skills in work.The men who want children but are still able to have them are the ones who go out to the less desirable jobs, like mining or harvesting fruit.The problem with this is, when a man like that meets a girl like that, they have absolutely no future together because he's not going to stick around to raise the kids and the woman isn't going to stick around either.The result, not every child gets the best chance at life.Bye.
>>10842398The answer to this thread is literally a single word and you morons just keep spamming incoherent bullshit.
>>10842407Please do not post any more pointless arguments, thank you.
>>10842424The answer is density. There's no argument. It's obvious
>>10842335>>10842436fuck off already you schizophrenic lunatic
>>10842492>neither of those posts are mine
>>10840936It's not urbanization nor industrialization. It's women at work.
I will twist it in another take.Its pensions.Pensions incentivize people to focus on career and not family, since if they pay more taxes from bigger salary, they will have bigger pension. That's fine, but when people focus on career they have less children, since they have less children, once they become pensioners there is less people to support them and here is the problem.But in reality its the governments fault for redistributing wealth and giving out fluff jobs to keep the birthrate down.If you remove government handouts you will see higher birthrate.
So, I'm familiar with the arguments in this thread - children as extra workers in rural areas, carers for the elderly, etc. And it makes perfect sense in terms of logic.BUT are people really that logical? And is this really applicable across every single culture and nation on Earth? Because birth rates have declined everywhere. Some places much sooner than others, sure, but everywhere. Are rural peasants in China, and working class Brits, and Favela Brazilians, and Upper class Germans, all sitting there thinking... well, I can only afford to put one child through university in 20 years time, and the state will definitely provide for my care in 60 years time, so one child it is? It just seems so far removed from how the vast majority of people think, in my experience. Not to mention, many declines seem to have occurred before widely available birth control... going off one example in this thread, how were working-class Londoners deliberately restricting the number of children they were having in the 1900s? Did everyone just stop having sex?I don't really have a coherent alternative, but the conventional explanations just don't seem to fit with reality to me.
>>10843404Pensions haven’t been a thing in America since the 90’s. >>10840936Cost of living is higher->Women have to work->No time to get pregnant or raise children otherwise their quality of life rapidly deteriorates. It’s much easier to raise children in a rural area as the cost of living is much lower so you have enough resources to use on them.
>>10843346India proved you wrong. They had declining birth rate despite lowering female labour participation.
>>10840936ONLY AMONG WHITES AND ASIANS.I hate sounding racist, but there's no shortage of babies and kids within other communities in urban environments.
>>10840936Tsarist Russia also had 30% of children dying before reaching maturity and regular famines. Agriculture in Russia simply couldnt supply enough food to keep people sufficiently fed.But the main line reasoning is simple: Urban flats are fucking small.
>>10843439>Pensions haven’t been a thing in America since the 90’s.Maybe, but you guys have welfare and food stamps. 40% of your population gets welfare to survive. Welfare removes the need for family and the consequences of that is less children being born.Either way, I just think its a natural self-preservation mechanism to lower the birthrate once the population starts consuming too many resources.
>>10843438>Are rural peasants in ChinaRural peasants in China still have tons of kids.The not-17th century rural ones do actually think about it. But it's not pensions, it's the fact they have to scrape by to afford an education for their kid to run away to the city and live a better life.Urbanites use the same calculus. They are living in a world completely unlike that of the rural farmers, but there is still room for improvement. Two families pooling all their money to a single person has the prospect of spawning a millionaire. Having 2-3 kids who have to share the attention, support and money does not.
>>10843438If you are a peasant with a bit of land just trying to get by you work hard, but not all the time. You have time to fuck because what else is there to do.Now if you are a factory worker in Victorian England you probably work like 80 hours a week at fixed times, you don't get to make too many spontaneous decisions to have sexAnd if you are a modern wagie you work way less, but you also have way more options available to you - you can engage in dozens different hobbies, travel to various places with ease and stuff.
>>10843346It works for every other case. So, there's got to be something else going on in India.Also it's common sense. So having women outside of the home 9 hours per day will make them have more or less kids? Hmmm...
>>10843490>So, there's got to be something else going on in India.If there is possibility of something else going on, despite absence of some war or other massive catastrophy. Then female labour participation rate is not the primary determinant, but instead one should look at what the "something else" is and then look at other countries if its happening there and examine if that "something" else doesnt provide better theory.>Also it's common sense. Not anymore. Its common sense that people in developed countries need stable income and faith in future to have kids, since having kids is now a choice. Unemployed people dont tend to have stable income and faith in future
Increase in the average age also should play a role. If you live to your 40s and then die, no shit you will spend your time making babies as fast as possible. But if you live to 80s it ain't that big of a deal. Don't quote me on this, but. In the early 1800s, the average woman lived to 45 years old, she got pregnant at 14 and gave birth at 15. When and where, I don't know.
>>10841103>Cairo, Dhaka, Manila, Kinshasha, Lagos
>>10843471The birthrate in rural China is higher than in urban areas but not by a spectacular amount. It's went from 6+ kids per woman to 1.6 or 1.7 since Mao.
>>10844046RainfallAlso Egypt is low density you worthless retardYou made me waste a post cooldown over nothing Ten seconds left
The answer to this thread is obviously a single world, density, and all of you pathetic liberals are giving these long winded idiotic responses that make no sense.Typical Americans.
>>10841137rainfall is water that comes out of the sky
>>10846113The answer to the thread is density. This thread just shows how much length liberals go to bullshit and shitpost over something that is obviously answered by a single world.
>did you just have a natural falling birthrate because of density and scarcity, sorry we need to bring in a million people a year to keep the crony system from literally imploding on itself, you will own nothing and live in a podhow do we stop neo liberalism bros?
>>10840936Because people had many kids so a few would survive and give them food when they were old. Now if you have two kids both will survive and you'll get social security payments.
>>10841099>women no longer praised for having lots of kidsNot true for USSR though. The poster literally says GLORY TO THE HEROINE-MOTHERS - and "Heroine-Mothers of USSR" were literally>mothers bearing and raising 10 or more children [...] It was awarded upon the first birthday of the last child, provided that nine other children (natural or adopted) remained alive. Children who had perished under heroic, military or other respectable circumstances, including occupational diseases, were also counted. The award was created simultaneously with the Order of Maternal Glory (Russian: Opдeн "Maтepинcкaя cлaвa") and the Maternity Medal (Russian: Meдaль мaтepинcтвa), intended for women with five to nine children.>Approximately 430,000 women were awarded this title during its existence.
>>10843404>If you remove government handouts you will see higher birthrate.pff
>>10843473>Now if you are a factory worker in Victorian England you probably work like 80 hours a week at fixed times, you don't get to make too many spontaneous decisions to have sexI'd all add that probably all the smog doesn't help your sperm count or avoiding miscarriages
increase of child rearing costs rapidly increases while child rearing benefits rapidly decrease.rural life means more kids=more laborurban life means more kids=more college expense
>>10845484>Egypt is low densityHave you ever seen an Egypt density map?Here it isHmm I wonder what that shape is...
>>10846296What's that bottle?
>>10847168Why does it stop? The Nile keeps going.
>>10845484>Egypt>low density Schizo-kun most of Egypt's population lives on the Nile, its dense as fuck
>>10847205I don't know, my first guess is that at some time is just not worth it to build stuff that far from the main city. I guess most resources have to be shipped from the Cairo and it just becomes to expensive to send hundreds of tons of stuff continually. Also, what doctor or engineer wants to live in the middle of the fucking desert?
>>10840988I’m starting to think rainfall and density is actually the cause after all....
>>10841228This. Its why I always argue that - barring collapse - our childrens and childrens lives are only going to get worse as the amount of specialization, optimization, and efficiency that is required for preparing a child and young adult for the coming labor markets is going to be pants-on-head staggering. There is no conceivable upwards trajectory for QoL for all of the modern world in the coming decades.>>10841233>Dad, how do computers work>ElectricityMAKE WAY FOR THE RIPPLE BRAIN
>>10841263Anyone who blindly holds capitalism as the end-all-be-all of societal structuring need to think real hard about the only possible end-game of this system.>>10847150>C-c-commie!!!Try again