Jack Weber Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 I'm not sure I buy that explanation. More money leads to less children, if anything. The world's richest nations have the lowest birth rates. The ultra poor nations, where people really can't afford to have a single child, can't even feed themselves, have among the highest birth rates. The issue is cultural, it is not just a lack of money. Uh... It's "cultural" only if you think poverty is cultural.This country used to have higher birthrates because the parents knew they would require children to take care of them in thier old age... In most of the "Third World" countries,there is virtually no social safety net.The only choice for poor people is to have many children to take of them once they get too old to work...To say nothing of high infant mortality rates in many of these countries... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
WWWTT Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 I'm not sure I buy that explanation. More money leads to less children, if anything. The world's richest nations have the lowest birth rates. The ultra poor nations, where people really can't afford to have a single child, can't even feed themselves, have among the highest birth rates. The issue is cultural, it is not just a lack of money. Excellent observation! Perhaps its because the people in wealtier nations are obsessed with the persuit of wealth.Or put money or work ahead of family. Really if you look at it that way,then would the world be better off controlled by people who put a higher value on family or people who put a higher value on wealth? I know who I would go with-Family first! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Folks in Canada generally stopped having huge families when this was introduced....along with these...makes for less children. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Bonam Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Uh... It's "cultural" only if you think poverty is cultural.This country used to have higher birthrates because the parents knew they would require children to take care of them in thier old age... In most of the "Third World" countries,there is virtually no social safety net.The only choice for poor people is to have many children to take of them once they get too old to work...To say nothing of high infant mortality rates in many of these countries... You think people in African hellholes with a life expectancy of 35-40 years do their "family planning" based around their projected needs when they are 50+? No, the reason they are having kids is not because they are thinking forward decades and optimizing their chances for being taken care of. They are having kids because that's what people do. Quote
Bonam Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 It's true. I mean, if you have no money to do anything after supper - like a movie, or drive-in, theatre, etc., you might as well screw. Er, I'd take screwing over a movie/theatre whether I had money or not... I mean it's obvious why people don't want kids. Kids are a lot of work, raising them means you are basically a slave to their needs 24/7 for the next 16-18ish years straight. You lose a huge amount of freedom and flexibility. I think maybe the real problem is not so much that Westerners value their wealth more than families, but that they value their freedom so highly that they'd rather not see it impinged upon by having kids. I mean, I want to have kids someday, but thinking about it and what it would mean in terms of my change in lifestyle, I can hardly fathom having them any time soon. No more ability to take off on a moment's notice with my friends on crazy hiking/climbing/ski trip? That would suck a lot. Quote
Shwa Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Er, I'd take screwing over a movie/theatre whether I had money or not... I mean it's obvious why people don't want kids. Kids are a lot of work, raising them means you are basically a slave to their needs 24/7 for the next 16-18ish years straight. You lose a huge amount of freedom and flexibility. I think maybe the real problem is not so much that Westerners value their wealth more than families, but that they value their freedom so highly that they'd rather not see it impinged upon by having kids. I mean, I want to have kids someday, but thinking about it and what it would mean in terms of my change in lifestyle, I can hardly fathom having them any time soon. No more ability to take off on a moment's notice with my friends on crazy hiking/climbing/ski trip? That would suck a lot. Kids change your lifestyle, that is for sure. But for the better. Plus, when you have them, you don't have to give up on all the fun, just make adjustments here and there. Lifestyle is way overrated anyways. It's basically junk and fading memories. Kids are people and last longer. Plus they are way more fun than camping. Even when you take them with you. Quote
Bonam Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Kids change your lifestyle, that is for sure. But for the better. Plus, when you have them, you don't have to give up on all the fun, just make adjustments here and there. Lifestyle is way overrated anyways. It's basically junk and fading memories. Kids are people and last longer. Plus they are way more fun than camping. Even when you take them with you. Perhaps, perhaps. My opinion stands nonetheless though, people don't want to give up the freedom that not having kids allows. I think that is by far the biggest reason for the low birth rates in Western countries right now. Quote
WWWTT Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Perhaps, perhaps. My opinion stands nonetheless though, people don't want to give up the freedom that not having kids allows. I think that is by far the biggest reason for the low birth rates in Western countries right now. Freedom to do what? People in these so called countries with lower population growths are working more and more hours(Oh god please lets not have a debate about the valitity of this fact). If you would rather go to work on a Saturday or work late instead of being with your family,then you have your priorities mixed up. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
cybercoma Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Freedom to do what? People in these so called countries with lower population growths are working more and more hours(Oh god please lets not have a debate about the valitity of this fact). If you would rather go to work on a Saturday or work late instead of being with your family,then you have your priorities mixed up. WWWTT I often suspected that developed nations having lower birthrates is an effect of their populations being more likely to work away from home. Quote
dre Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 I often suspected that developed nations having lower birthrates is an effect of their populations being more likely to work away from home. Actually the two biggest reasons why birthrates decline as a country developes are... 1. In an early developmen agrarian economy a large number of laborers are required mostly to work on farms. 2. Less developmented nations have higher birth rates but also higher death rates. Families have more children because its likely some of them will die before they reach maturity. Theres a model that seeks to explain this... its called the Demographic Transition Model. Essentially it breaks development into a few stages. Stage I Prior to the Industrial Revolution, countries in Western Europe had a high CBR and CDR. Births were high because more children meant more workers on the farm and with the high death rate, families needed more children to ensure survival of the family. Death rates were high due to disease and a lack of hygiene. The high CBR and CDR were somewhat stable and meant slow growth of a population. Occasional epidemics would dramatically increase the CDR for a few years (represented by the "waves" in Stage I of the model. Stage II In the mid-18th century, the death rate in Western European countries dropped due to improvement in sanitation and medicine. Out of tradition and practice, the birth rate remained high. This dropping death rate but stable birth rate in the beginning of Stage II contributed to skyrocketing population growth rates. Over time, children became an added expense and were less able to contribute to the wealth of a family. For this reason, along with advances in birth control, the CBR was reduced through the 20th century in developed countries. Populations still grew rapidly but this growth began to slow down. Many less developed countries are currently in Stage II of the model. For example, Kenya's high CBR of 32 per 1000 but low CDR of 14 per 1000 contribute to a high rate of growth (as in mid-Stage II). Stage III In the late 20th century, the CBR and CDR in developed countries both leveled off at a low rate. In some cases the CBR is slightly higher than the CDR (as in the U.S. 14 versus 9) while in other countries the CBR is less than the CDR (as in Germany, 9 versus 11). (You can obtain current CBR and CDR data for all countries through the Census Bureau's International Data Base). Immigration from less developed countries now accounts for much of the population growth in developed countries that are in Stage III of the transition. Countries like China, South Korea, Singapore, and Cuba are rapidly approaching Stage III. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Freedom to do what? Whatever you want? People in these so called countries with lower population growths are working more and more hours(Oh god please lets not have a debate about the valitity of this fact). Why not? It's an unsubstantiated claim. Most everyone I know works a standard work week of 37.5-40 hours, same as most people have been doing for decades. Quote
dre Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Whatever you want? Why not? It's an unsubstantiated claim. Most everyone I know works a standard work week of 37.5-40 hours, same as most people have been doing for decades. Thats partly true... Although most people I know work more than that now days. I pretty much never work less than 50 hours per week. But keep in mind most families have two people working those hours, which wasnt the case 30 years ago. Women are more career minded too, and being a stay at home parent is almost looked down on in our society these days. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Moonlight Graham Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Women are more career minded too, and being a stay at home parent is almost looked down on in our society these days. My mother even said she felt this, she was a stay-at-home mom. It's perverted. Many good things have come from the women's movement, but also some bad. Strangers raising our kids even when we do have them. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
jacee Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Perhaps as countries develop people do not depend on children for labour any more. Quote
dre Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Perhaps as countries develop people do not depend on children for labour any more. Like I said before... thats a big part of it. Children used to be seen as assets. They could work in the fields and care for you in your old age. Now theyre seen more as liabilities by some. This is mentioned in the Demographic Transition model I posted about before. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Jack Weber Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) You think people in African hellholes with a life expectancy of 35-40 years do their "family planning" based around their projected needs when they are 50+? No, the reason they are having kids is not because they are thinking forward decades and optimizing their chances for being taken care of. They are having kids because that's what people do. Actually.. Seeing as I know a little about Africa,and definately more than you,most people have large families because: 1.Family is all they have to rely on and fall back on in old age,whatever age that might be because,as I said,there is little to no social safety net to save people. 2.High infant mortality rates,even up to the age of 5... And it might shock you to know,oh worldly one,that much of subSaharan Africa is'nt the "hellhole" you claim it is... The entire continent should not be viewed through the prism of an Ethiopian/Somali famine... Edited July 26, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Oleg Bach Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 So when the whites showed up in black countries, they were anti-black? British colonial racism started when Darwin suggested that we were all apes - the Brits must have imagined that blacks were more apeish and that being a white ape with buck teeth was less apeish. Quote
Scotty Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) Perhaps, perhaps. My opinion stands nonetheless though, people don't want to give up the freedom that not having kids allows. I think that is by far the biggest reason for the low birth rates in Western countries right now. I think you'll be hard pressed to find people with children who don't consider it a more than fair trade. Kids are actually a lot of fun, you know. And when you're sitting alone staring at your senior years approaching, you'll wonder what your life was for, and what to do with yourself. Edited July 26, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Bonam Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 I think you'll be hard pressed to find people with children who don't consider it a more than fair trade. Kids are actually a lot of fun, you know. And when you're sitting alone staring at your senior years approaching, you'll wonder what your life was for, and what to do with yourself. Oh, I definitely agree, and like I said, I'd like to have kids someday (I'm still young and got plenty of time ). I'm not making an argument for not having kids, I'm simply explaining one factor that I believe contributes to fewer people having kids. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Oh, I definitely agree, and like I said, I'd like to have kids someday (I'm still young and got plenty of time ). I'm not making an argument for not having kids, I'm simply explaining one factor that I believe contributes to fewer people having kids. When I was a kid, I took it for granted that when I grew up there was a chance I could get a job working on the Moon! I guess it's going to take another century or two. NASA no doubt still hasn't finished all its "weightlessness experiments" and Obama has made America's vision (or lack of it) quite obvious. Maybe my children will achieve my dream, after getting a job with an Indian or a Chinese company... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
DogOnPorch Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 When I was a kid, I took it for granted that when I grew up there was a chance I could get a job working on the Moon! I see you also suffer from WMSSSS...Where's My Silver Space Suit Syndrome. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Scotty Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Like I said before... thats a big part of it. Children used to be seen as assets. They could work in the fields and care for you in your old age. Now theyre seen more as liabilities by some. Given the quality and expense of senior care in this country people are being pretty short-sighted, then. Seniors who have kids to help look after them fare one hell of a lot better than seniors who have nobody there but the state. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 Oh, I definitely agree, and like I said, I'd like to have kids someday (I'm still young and got plenty of time ). I'm not making an argument for not having kids, I'm simply explaining one factor that I believe contributes to fewer people having kids. It might be a factor, but I'm not so sure it's a primary factor. As an example, I know two young women in their early thirties. Both are married. Family income for both couples is well over $100k. Neither woman a particularly jet-setting lifestyle, mostly staying at home at night. Neither has any children, and neither expects to have any. They both have dogs though. They have pictures of those dogs on their desks. They take the dogs to training school. One of them has a dogsitting place where she drops the dog off every day where it can "play" with other dogs. They talk about their dogs all the time, laughing about this or that thing their dogs have done. And it's kind of sad, because it's like they don't seem to have a clue what a pale shadow of satisfaction, fulfilment and enjoyment the dog is compared to children. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Oleg Bach Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 When I was a kid, I took it for granted that when I grew up there was a chance I could get a job working on the Moon! I guess it's going to take another century or two. NASA no doubt still hasn't finished all its "weightlessness experiments" and Obama has made America's vision (or lack of it) quite obvious. Maybe my children will achieve my dream, after getting a job with an Indian or a Chinese company... We WILL go to mars the idiots say...we will spend trillions getting there so we can stand on a rock and glorify ourselves with a useless deed while our space ship the planet earth continues to be inhabited by the poor - suffering and the starved..great - just great. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2011 Report Posted July 26, 2011 We WILL go to mars the idiots say...we will spend trillions getting there so we can stand on a rock and glorify ourselves with a useless deed while our space ship the planet earth continues to be inhabited by the poor - suffering and the starved..great - just great. That's one POV. Some of us have another. Personally, I like to think that it would be an opportunity to leave the planet to all the people who think they know how to run it. Meanwhile, the rest of us could cheerfully stop offending them by contradicting their ideas and simply leave! It would just be the next step in Darwinism, Oleg! Most folks don't want you to give them a solution for their troubles. They already have some cockamamie idea, like socialism, that can't possibly work but if you're going to offer a solution it had better be one that fits their preconceived notions! I swear that too many people really want power more than food! And when their screwy ideas won't work they will seek to make slaves of those who are more practical. Stalinist Russia was a good example. If Atlas is just a greedy bastard then who needs him? Let him go and save the trouble! If one truly believes in freedom why on earth would you object to people having a chance to leave? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.