The Falling Birth Rate Crisis in 1st World Countries is Good

[Raze]

4 hours ago, bebotalk said:

For me, it's pretty simple. People are healthier and richer. 

It could be feminism or its perceived negative effects. I'm sceptical over claims that feminism is causing this, as whilst in the West women's rights are strong, there are hardly many female business leaders in the Middle East, India, or much of Asia. Women's rights are hardly entrenched there, but they too are reporting fertility/birth rate decreases.  https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JOR/jordan/birth-rate  Jordan hardly has positive women's rights. 

But the incentives to have kids aren't as pressing. People were worse off a century ago but they still had more kids. 

For most of human history, birth rates were high due to higher child mortality and heightened poverty. Having lots of kids meant that on average more survived to adulthood, and could help the family with chores and overall tasks. More people working also meant more finances and this was important in agrarian societies. There was also no birth control, so the chance of pregnancy was high anytime a couple had sex. 

As people today, compared to 200 years ago, are healthier, have access to contraception, and are wealthier with less need for children as insurance, birth rates are falling. I'm no sociologist or economist, but I think it has to be deemed a factor here.

Even in developing countries, people are more urbanised, and thus living on a farm or a rural village is lessened. This means then that due to increased urbanisation, there is less need to have six or more children helping extended family tend crops on family-owned fields. One thing that rich and poor countries have in common is rising average life expectancies, access to contraception, growth in incomes and living standards, and increased urbanisation. 

 

Those middle eastern countries are also becoming more egalitarian. For example Saudia Arabia was infamous for not letting women drive or vote but they can do both now.

Polling data finds women on average want 2.5-3 kids, so it’s not people who don’t want kids not having it, it’s people who want kids never having them.

Less people means less innovation. Imagine having 1/10th the movies you like for example. 

[bebotalk]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

Those middle eastern countries are also becoming more egalitarian. For example Saudia Arabia was infamous for not letting women drive or vote but they can do both now.

Polling data finds women on average want 2.5-3 kids, so it’s not people who don’t want kids not having it, it’s people who want kids never having them.

Less people means less innovation. Imagine having 1/10th the movies you like for example. 

they are far from egalitarian and won't be anywhere near that of Western levels anytime soon, and perhaps ever. however, fertility rates have been falling even before some recent reforms in the Middle East. Why do fewer people mean more innovation? Movies are art. Art doesn't depend on a big population for innovation. 

[rnd]

On 8/12/2023 at 3:35 PM, Raze said:

For example Saudia Arabia was infamous for not letting women drive or vote but they can do both now.

Let me, as a non speaker, fix your American English:
 

For example, Saudia Arabia was used to be infamous for not letting prohibiting the women to drive or and vote but they can do both now. But now(adays) they've been allowed to do both.

[bebotalk]

14 hours ago, rnd said:

Let me, as a non speaker, fix your American English:
 

For example, Saudia Arabia was used to be infamous for not letting prohibiting the women to drive or and vote but they can do both now. But now(adays) they've been allowed to do both.

Well, no. It's not "the women", it's just women. 
Also, you omitted correcting "Saudi", as "Saudia" is clearly false.