Historically, cities were often population sinks due to higher disease rates, not low fertility. Diseases can increase death rates, but there's nothing about cities that causes lower fertility rates.
If density lowered fertility rates, then the Ashkenazi Jews would've gone extinct in the 1800s. Instead, the Jews had a huge population explosion in the 19th century, while mostly living in European cities. In many cases, the increasing Jewish population in cities lead to overcrowding in urban areas, hence one reason why antisemitism was rapidly growing.
When I have time, I'll add a new section to my FAQs to address this topic in greater depth, since I surprisingly haven't covered it yet. I'll make sure there's a link to this article, once I finish it. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation
The point is that the ability of 19th century Ashkenazi Jews to grow in cities disproves the idea that cities reduce fertility. You could also look at the Ultra-Orthodox Jews in New York City and its metro area who also have really high fertility.
The pearl clutching about the causes and solutions to declining birth rates is a waste of time. Now that we've moved beyond agricultural subsistence economies, low birth rates are inevitable -- and permanent. Nobody needs 10 kids to bring in the yam harvest any more.
Urban density, feminism, the Internet perhaps all contribute but I would submit it's a more fruitful use of research dollars to figure out how to reconfigure society to function with fewer people via automation, robotics, AI, etc. We're already moving in that direction, so this is a challenge that can be met.
The global population in 1970 was 3.7 billion, less than half of what it is today. Was it a dystopian hellscape then? No.
If we can manage the decline responsibly, a reduction in population would result in a profound increase in quality of life for all, not to mention reducing resource utilization to more sane levels.
Projections show we have until 2080, when global population finally begins to fall. That's doable, if we have our priorities straight.
Agricultural economies did not have children just so they can enslave them. Raising children in any environment requires a lot of parental investment. If anything, raising children would increase the amount of work that parents have to do, not reduce it. The explanation simply doesn't make sense from a purely biological perspective.
It doesn't make psychological sense either. Would you have children, just so you can enslave them to work on your farm? If infant mortality rate was really high, would you willingly choose to bring children into this world, knowing that they are probably going to die? Most parents love their children, and wouldn't want to subject them to slavery or harm. The mainstream explanations for traditionally high fertility are just fallacious. https://zerocontradictions.net/pdfs/demography-and-destiny.pdf
Futurist Herman Kahn used to say the following two things. (I'm his daughter)
THE GREAT TRANSITION (roughly 1975)
200 years ago mankind was generally poor, scarce, and at the mercy of the forces of nature.
200 years from now (roughly 2175) - barring bad luck and very bad management - mankind will be generally rich, populous, and significantly in control of the forces of nature.
Herman attributed the likelihood of the above prediction being accurate to the fact that technology and knowledge create 'growing pies', as compared to 'shrinking pie' analogies.
On large families in the affluent first world, he often commented:
"Benjamin Franklin used to say, "The best way to wealth is to marry a woman with 10 children.""
In an agricultural economy a large family work force is a benefit.
"Now, imagine taking 10 kids to Disneyland... much less putting them through college!"
Mankind will not be wealthy or prosperous 200 years from now, unless it makes multiple reforms from the current trajectory, including enforcing population control. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation
Agricultural economies did not have children just so they can enslave them. Raising children in any environment requires a lot of parental investment, so that explanation doesn't make biological sense. If anything, raising children would increase the amount of work that parents have to do, not reduce it.
It doesn't make psychological sense either. Would you have children, just so you can enslave them to work on your farm? Most parents love their children, and wouldn't want to subject them to slavery or harm. The mainstream explanations for traditionally high fertility are just fallacious. https://zerocontradictions.net/pdfs/demography-and-destiny.pdf
Bit of a jump from large agricultural families working together to enslaved children.
And if you check the statistics, wealth is a more consistent indicator of low fertility rates than access to contraception, and also holds true prior to modern birth control.
I think you're still missing the point. Children are not effective laborers. All children require lots of parental investment. If anything, it would be cheaper for farmers to hire adults to work on their farms, instead of having children. Adults are better laborers, and farm owners wouldn't need to babysit paid workers, as they would have to for their own children.
And if having lots of children guaranteed that the parents would have lots of labor to use or exploit, then all parents would have huge families because it would make them financially better off, but that's not the case.
I don't think I'm jumping between statements either. If the primary reason for farmers in agricultural societies to have lots children is just so that they can use them as laborers, then how is that not slavery? It's not like the children can just disobey their parents and run away, because that would be illegal.
Most people have children because it fits their emotions and would make them happy. I grew up in a rural area, and I've never heard any parents say that they only had children because they wanted their children to work for them. The idea that most people would do that to their own children frankly sounds bizarre and insane, at least to me anyway. There might be some people in agricultural families who would actually do that, but they would only make a tiny minority of people.
It's also still true that birth control usage is the main cause of low fertility. Removing any person's birth control would instantly cause birth rates to skyrocket, assuming that said person has regular sex and isn't sterilized. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#why-birth-rates-declined
If you want to have a serious discussion about all this, I encourage you to read the relevant sections in the Population Dynamics FAQs.
"Population control is the best way to guarantee quality over quantity."
I would say immigration control is the best way to guarantee quality over quantity. As for the native population, I would say voluntary embryo selection and genetic enhancement are the best solutions. But both will take some time to develop research. However, the way is being paved through the use of psychometrics and genetic manipulation.
Your forced population control is fraught with minefields.
Yes, selective immigration, embryo selection, and genetic enhancement should each be encouraged. In practice though, emphasizing technology as a way to improve eugenics is often used as an excuse to say that fertility rates don't matter. The fertility rates of different races have the potential to affect a population's average intelligence far more than technology-based eugenics can. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#GE-IQ-decline
And no, forced population control is not fraught with problems. The Overpopulation FAQs are very extensive, and they likely cover all of your objections. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation
Interesting analysis. As a pure economic driver i would assume something to do with women's wages relative to men's. But I think ultimately ideology is the cause. Which means you can't really get to the bottom of it statistically. Though you may find strong correlates.
The primary driver is men’s wages, men are not willing to commit to a family unless they can make enough money to support both a woman and child. The idea that both parents should work is a westernized idea and a huge mistake, you can either be a decent parent or have a career you cant and shouldn’t try both at the same time. Parenting is a full time job for at least one person. Most men know that you can’t have a normal family if your wife is out of the house competing for dollars with men. It just doesn’t work unless you’re rich enough to pay someone else to raise your kid then why bother since someone else is doing the parenting. The damage done by the feminist agenda is still unfolding in western societies and will continue to destroy our culture until there is a correction. Men and women are biologically different for a good reason. Parenting is why.
I interviewed Rosemary Hopcroft about this just yesterday. She's found that higher class women are now beginning to have more children but lower class women are not.
I'll reword my comment: Are some women, after learning of demographic projections, choosing to allocate their spare resources to having kids rather more than to individual pleasures?
In NZ, TFR dropped through the 1970's until stabilising around 2.1 until about 2010. Since then it has progressively dropped to currently 1.6. This decline has been attributed to delayed marriage and child bearing (following women's rising education and advancement into management levels, particularly in state employment).
I agree that the factors you've mentioned lowered the TFR of NZ. It's also likely that an increased variety and improved effectiveness of contraception products and technologies also contributed to the decline. Women wouldn't be able to pursue higher education or careers as well if they had to bear children, so contraception enabled both of those. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#why-birth-rates-declined
It's complicated. The demographic transition was predated by the agricultural revolution which was a forced move for humans and it's "good" is arguable given that it likely created mass slavery and low nutrition diets. But needs must. See my podcast interview with @raweggnationalist about this on my podcast page.
Rosemary posits that higher status/higher fertility has always been a constant. The blip caused by the demographic transition was temporary, at least for elites.
As for the future, all bets are off. We'll be in a post-human age soon & I'm glad I'll not be here to suffer it. This is the dawn of the golden age of humans. Live well when you can
While there is data supporting some lowering of birth rate in high density living situations, I believe that the most consistent and significant factor reflecting/affecting(?) dropping fertility rates is WEALTH. This is something Herman Kahn noted back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
No, increasing wealth does not decrease fertility rates. That is contrary to virtually all historical evidence (https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#rising-wealth-and-fertility). It doesn't make sense either. Would you claim that an abundant food supply (i.e. abundant wealth) would decrease birth rates?
The environments of cities or densely populated regions have *nothing* to do with decreasing fertility rates. There are plenty of densely populated regions (e.g. the Gaza strip) with relatively high fertility. In the long run, low fertility will be corrected by evolution. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#evolve-to-resist-birth-control
Population drops in a world of affluence can be seen in Calhoun's famous Universe 25 rat study, where in an environment of plenty, and little in the way of externally imposed challenges, mating dropped dramatically.
"First World" nations, the recipients of the benefits of modern civilization - which lead to and include wealth - have the lowest fertility rates in the world.
Also see: Neil Cummins, Dept. of Economic History, LSE
Marital fertility and wealth in transition era France,
Again, you're still missing the point. The point is that greater wealth does not *cause* lower fertility. There are correlations, but there's no *causal relationship* from the former to the latter. These population drops among wealthy countries that you're mentioning only occurred in recent times, so they are quite exceptional compared to all of human history, especially since modern times have more confounding factors than all preceding times.
You still don't have a plausible causal explanation for why increased wealth would lead to lower fertility rates, even more so since you previously dismissed birth control as being a main factor that lowers fertility rates.
Again, if you want to have a serious discussion about all this topic, then you have to read the linked sections in the Population Dynamics FAQs. You're merely stating trivial correlations, while failing to analyze or understand the causal reasoning for why the data is the way it is. You also didn't bother to read the links.
Your replies suggest that you're not interested in actually understanding how these things work, so I will not respond to you any further.
Historically, cities were often population sinks due to higher disease rates, not low fertility. Diseases can increase death rates, but there's nothing about cities that causes lower fertility rates.
If density lowered fertility rates, then the Ashkenazi Jews would've gone extinct in the 1800s. Instead, the Jews had a huge population explosion in the 19th century, while mostly living in European cities. In many cases, the increasing Jewish population in cities lead to overcrowding in urban areas, hence one reason why antisemitism was rapidly growing.
When I have time, I'll add a new section to my FAQs to address this topic in greater depth, since I surprisingly haven't covered it yet. I'll make sure there's a link to this article, once I finish it. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation
Why are you assuming 19th century Ashkenazi Jews living in Europe are equivalent to 21st century native Europeans?
The point is that the ability of 19th century Ashkenazi Jews to grow in cities disproves the idea that cities reduce fertility. You could also look at the Ultra-Orthodox Jews in New York City and its metro area who also have really high fertility.
Cities don't reduce fertility. They simply attract low-fertility demographics, most of the time. More Information: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#density-fertility
The pearl clutching about the causes and solutions to declining birth rates is a waste of time. Now that we've moved beyond agricultural subsistence economies, low birth rates are inevitable -- and permanent. Nobody needs 10 kids to bring in the yam harvest any more.
Urban density, feminism, the Internet perhaps all contribute but I would submit it's a more fruitful use of research dollars to figure out how to reconfigure society to function with fewer people via automation, robotics, AI, etc. We're already moving in that direction, so this is a challenge that can be met.
The global population in 1970 was 3.7 billion, less than half of what it is today. Was it a dystopian hellscape then? No.
If we can manage the decline responsibly, a reduction in population would result in a profound increase in quality of life for all, not to mention reducing resource utilization to more sane levels.
Projections show we have until 2080, when global population finally begins to fall. That's doable, if we have our priorities straight.
Agricultural economies did not have children just so they can enslave them. Raising children in any environment requires a lot of parental investment. If anything, raising children would increase the amount of work that parents have to do, not reduce it. The explanation simply doesn't make sense from a purely biological perspective.
It doesn't make psychological sense either. Would you have children, just so you can enslave them to work on your farm? If infant mortality rate was really high, would you willingly choose to bring children into this world, knowing that they are probably going to die? Most parents love their children, and wouldn't want to subject them to slavery or harm. The mainstream explanations for traditionally high fertility are just fallacious. https://zerocontradictions.net/pdfs/demography-and-destiny.pdf
The real reason why agricultural economies had higher fertility rates is because they had less birth control. Birth control obviously decreases birth rates, especially if it's affordable and widely accessible. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#why-birth-rates-declined
No, we cannot assume that the global population will begin falling in 2080. The model that makes that conclusion is based on false and questionable assumptions. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#peak-or-decline-at-12-billion
Futurist Herman Kahn used to say the following two things. (I'm his daughter)
THE GREAT TRANSITION (roughly 1975)
200 years ago mankind was generally poor, scarce, and at the mercy of the forces of nature.
200 years from now (roughly 2175) - barring bad luck and very bad management - mankind will be generally rich, populous, and significantly in control of the forces of nature.
Herman attributed the likelihood of the above prediction being accurate to the fact that technology and knowledge create 'growing pies', as compared to 'shrinking pie' analogies.
On large families in the affluent first world, he often commented:
"Benjamin Franklin used to say, "The best way to wealth is to marry a woman with 10 children.""
In an agricultural economy a large family work force is a benefit.
"Now, imagine taking 10 kids to Disneyland... much less putting them through college!"
In a post-industrial world...
Mankind will not be wealthy or prosperous 200 years from now, unless it makes multiple reforms from the current trajectory, including enforcing population control. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation
Agricultural economies did not have children just so they can enslave them. Raising children in any environment requires a lot of parental investment, so that explanation doesn't make biological sense. If anything, raising children would increase the amount of work that parents have to do, not reduce it.
It doesn't make psychological sense either. Would you have children, just so you can enslave them to work on your farm? Most parents love their children, and wouldn't want to subject them to slavery or harm. The mainstream explanations for traditionally high fertility are just fallacious. https://zerocontradictions.net/pdfs/demography-and-destiny.pdf
The real reason why agricultural economies had higher fertility rates is because they had less birth control. Birth control obviously decreases birth rates, especially if it's affordable and widely accessible. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#why-birth-rates-declined
Bit of a jump from large agricultural families working together to enslaved children.
And if you check the statistics, wealth is a more consistent indicator of low fertility rates than access to contraception, and also holds true prior to modern birth control.
I think you're still missing the point. Children are not effective laborers. All children require lots of parental investment. If anything, it would be cheaper for farmers to hire adults to work on their farms, instead of having children. Adults are better laborers, and farm owners wouldn't need to babysit paid workers, as they would have to for their own children.
And if having lots of children guaranteed that the parents would have lots of labor to use or exploit, then all parents would have huge families because it would make them financially better off, but that's not the case.
I don't think I'm jumping between statements either. If the primary reason for farmers in agricultural societies to have lots children is just so that they can use them as laborers, then how is that not slavery? It's not like the children can just disobey their parents and run away, because that would be illegal.
Most people have children because it fits their emotions and would make them happy. I grew up in a rural area, and I've never heard any parents say that they only had children because they wanted their children to work for them. The idea that most people would do that to their own children frankly sounds bizarre and insane, at least to me anyway. There might be some people in agricultural families who would actually do that, but they would only make a tiny minority of people.
And yes, I did look at the statistics. Wealth can negatively correlate with fertility, but it's not for the reasons that you think. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#wealth-fertility-rates-correlation
To the contrary, increasing wealth would *increase* birth rates, *not* decrease them. My site has many links, studies, and surveys which verify this. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#stats-more-wealth-more-children
It's also still true that birth control usage is the main cause of low fertility. Removing any person's birth control would instantly cause birth rates to skyrocket, assuming that said person has regular sex and isn't sterilized. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#why-birth-rates-declined
If you want to have a serious discussion about all this, I encourage you to read the relevant sections in the Population Dynamics FAQs.
"The global population in 1970 was 3.7 billion, less than half of what it is today. Was it a dystopian hellscape then? No."
Yes, demographics is destiny. That is why, as in all things, quality over quantity.
Population control is the best way to guarantee quality over quantity. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation
"Population control is the best way to guarantee quality over quantity."
I would say immigration control is the best way to guarantee quality over quantity. As for the native population, I would say voluntary embryo selection and genetic enhancement are the best solutions. But both will take some time to develop research. However, the way is being paved through the use of psychometrics and genetic manipulation.
Your forced population control is fraught with minefields.
Yes, selective immigration, embryo selection, and genetic enhancement should each be encouraged. In practice though, emphasizing technology as a way to improve eugenics is often used as an excuse to say that fertility rates don't matter. The fertility rates of different races have the potential to affect a population's average intelligence far more than technology-based eugenics can. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#GE-IQ-decline
And no, forced population control is not fraught with problems. The Overpopulation FAQs are very extensive, and they likely cover all of your objections. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation
Interesting analysis. As a pure economic driver i would assume something to do with women's wages relative to men's. But I think ultimately ideology is the cause. Which means you can't really get to the bottom of it statistically. Though you may find strong correlates.
The primary driver is men’s wages, men are not willing to commit to a family unless they can make enough money to support both a woman and child. The idea that both parents should work is a westernized idea and a huge mistake, you can either be a decent parent or have a career you cant and shouldn’t try both at the same time. Parenting is a full time job for at least one person. Most men know that you can’t have a normal family if your wife is out of the house competing for dollars with men. It just doesn’t work unless you’re rich enough to pay someone else to raise your kid then why bother since someone else is doing the parenting. The damage done by the feminist agenda is still unfolding in western societies and will continue to destroy our culture until there is a correction. Men and women are biologically different for a good reason. Parenting is why.
I do not think this is the primary factor, but definitely a contributing one.
I interviewed Rosemary Hopcroft about this just yesterday. She's found that higher class women are now beginning to have more children but lower class women are not.
Does she have any suggestions of why? My first thought is that more knowledgeable/competent people respond more promptly to changing circumstances.
The simple explanation is that increasing wealth tends to increase fertility rates. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#stats-more-wealth-more-children
In the modern world, there is sometimes a negative correlation between wealth and fertility rates, and I have an explanation for that too. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#wealth-fertility-rates-correlation
I'll reword my comment: Are some women, after learning of demographic projections, choosing to allocate their spare resources to having kids rather more than to individual pleasures?
In NZ, TFR dropped through the 1970's until stabilising around 2.1 until about 2010. Since then it has progressively dropped to currently 1.6. This decline has been attributed to delayed marriage and child bearing (following women's rising education and advancement into management levels, particularly in state employment).
Hmm, maybe a few or some, but probably not most.
I agree that the factors you've mentioned lowered the TFR of NZ. It's also likely that an increased variety and improved effectiveness of contraception products and technologies also contributed to the decline. Women wouldn't be able to pursue higher education or careers as well if they had to bear children, so contraception enabled both of those. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#why-birth-rates-declined
It's complicated. The demographic transition was predated by the agricultural revolution which was a forced move for humans and it's "good" is arguable given that it likely created mass slavery and low nutrition diets. But needs must. See my podcast interview with @raweggnationalist about this on my podcast page.
Rosemary posits that higher status/higher fertility has always been a constant. The blip caused by the demographic transition was temporary, at least for elites.
As for the future, all bets are off. We'll be in a post-human age soon & I'm glad I'll not be here to suffer it. This is the dawn of the golden age of humans. Live well when you can
It's about income not density.
Futurist Herman Kahn used to say the following regarding large families in the affluent first world. (I'm his daughter)
"Benjamin Franklin used to say, "The best way to wealth is to marry a woman with 10 children.""
In an agricultural economy a large family work force is a benefit.
"Now, imagine taking 10 kids to Disneyland... much less putting them through college!"
In a post-industrial world...
While there is data supporting some lowering of birth rate in high density living situations, I believe that the most consistent and significant factor reflecting/affecting(?) dropping fertility rates is WEALTH. This is something Herman Kahn noted back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
There is an excellent dynamic chart showing this from 1950 to 2019 in Our World in Data (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-fertility-rate-vs-level-of-prosperity?time=2019).
I also find Eric Johnson's comment (https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/does-density-lower-fertility/comment/82429638) of interest.
No, increasing wealth does not decrease fertility rates. That is contrary to virtually all historical evidence (https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#rising-wealth-and-fertility). It doesn't make sense either. Would you claim that an abundant food supply (i.e. abundant wealth) would decrease birth rates?
In the modern world, there is sometimes a negative correlation between wealth and fertility rates, and I have an explanation for that too. Low fertility is basically caused by modern civilization (birth control, industrialization). https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#wealth-fertility-rates-correlation
The environments of cities or densely populated regions have *nothing* to do with decreasing fertility rates. There are plenty of densely populated regions (e.g. the Gaza strip) with relatively high fertility. In the long run, low fertility will be corrected by evolution. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#evolve-to-resist-birth-control
Population drops in a world of affluence can be seen in Calhoun's famous Universe 25 rat study, where in an environment of plenty, and little in the way of externally imposed challenges, mating dropped dramatically.
"First World" nations, the recipients of the benefits of modern civilization - which lead to and include wealth - have the lowest fertility rates in the world.
Also see: Neil Cummins, Dept. of Economic History, LSE
Marital fertility and wealth in transition era France,
1750-1850
n.j.cummins@lse.ac.uk
Abstract
The spectacularly early decline of French fertility ... This analysis links highly
detailed individual level fertility life histories to wealth at death data
for four rural villages in transition-era France, 1750-1850. The results
show that it was the richest groups who reduced their family size
first and that they used ‘spacing’ strategies to achieve this. In cross
section, measures of the environment for social mobility are strongly
associated with the fertility decline.
Again, you're still missing the point. The point is that greater wealth does not *cause* lower fertility. There are correlations, but there's no *causal relationship* from the former to the latter. These population drops among wealthy countries that you're mentioning only occurred in recent times, so they are quite exceptional compared to all of human history, especially since modern times have more confounding factors than all preceding times.
Throughout virtually all of human history prior to the 1800s, greater wealth *always* lead to higher fertility rates. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#rising-wealth-and-fertility
You still don't have a plausible causal explanation for why increased wealth would lead to lower fertility rates, even more so since you previously dismissed birth control as being a main factor that lowers fertility rates.
Again, if you want to have a serious discussion about all this topic, then you have to read the linked sections in the Population Dynamics FAQs. You're merely stating trivial correlations, while failing to analyze or understand the causal reasoning for why the data is the way it is. You also didn't bother to read the links.
Your replies suggest that you're not interested in actually understanding how these things work, so I will not respond to you any further.