| >> |
03/13/12(Tue)07:10 No.2087132>>2087087
You're missing the point.
>But, the problem is they choose NOT to.
Birth
rates have declined since the beginning of the industrial revolution in
every country touched by it. The first people to notice were in the
1850s. At least part of the reason is large increases in childhood
survival rates - people have few live births *because* less children
die.
But otherwise, the last century is the first time people
could reliably both have sex and not have children. It's simply the
first time there's been a choice.
>People
in developed countries are choosing not to have children as they become
better educated, and women become less dependent on men.
Education
levels for men correlate poorly to number of children, given equal
levels of education in their spouses. Education levels in women
correlate strongly to reduced numbers of children. Basically, people
responsible for childcare choose to devote more of themselves to fewer
children, all else being equal. They probably would have chosen the same
thing thousands of years ago, if they were allowed to.
>At the same time, population in third world countries are booming.
Birth
rates are falling faster in the developing world than anywhere else.
They are, in fact, going up among white middle class people in Europe.
The thing is that childhood survival is increasing in the developing
world faster than the birth rate is falling. For at least another
generation, that trend will dominate population growth in Latin America
and Asia, but in Africa, AIDS is a larger player in mortality.
Basically,
what is going on is not some new choice, it's having choices for the
first time, and choosing what pretty much any sensible person would
choose. |
