In many developed countries, the birth rate is now equal to or below the death rate, while undeveloped and developing countries continue to have skyrocketing populations...
My question is: Why?
Not in general terms, but absolute specifics. What exactly is it?
Better education, as some here have said? If so, education about what, or just in general?
Simply being well-off?
Access to birth control?
Something else?
In other words, what exactly would have to be 'exported' to high birth-rate countries to slow them down some, without having to make them exact copies of developed countries, which would take too long, be too expensive, and create more resistance?
I think it's mainly down to education and the cultures of the more developed countries. In less developed countries I think it just seems natural to people to start big families, as often they have very little choice of ways to support themselves.
High educated people also don't have the time or money when they are fertile. I also have to study untill I'm 30-something. The girls will probably also want to actually make some money after that, so there is no moment in which they could get pregnant without making all that studying worth nothing, as a matter of speaking.
It's a mixture of, as mentioned, education and changes in lifestyle. In developed countries there is better access to education, allowing people make better informed choices on anything from reproduction to occupation to... whatever. In terms of lifestyle, well, we live more comfortably with longer life expectancy due to better access to health care, nutrition and maintaining life is no longer a struggle. Along with this comes a shift in focus from trying to live to careers and the like, and changes in family structure. In "developing" nations, the family is more important, and in many instances, is an individual's life line. In order to gain enough resources to live, you need a large support network, the family. With lower life expectancy and poorer health care the likelihood of losing children increases... more children is essentially insurance that enough will survive and be around to help gathering resources for the family to survive and when the parents become enfeebled, to take care of them before they pass on. In developed nations, large families are not needed to compensate for child death, as it becomes rare... it's also not needed to ensure that resources can be gathered to keep them alive, as basic necessities are much easier to attain.
This is, of course, a gross oversimplification, but that's a part of it.
Apart from all the above reasons that have already been mentioned, I think religion may play a role as well. For example given the Catholic Church policies regarding birth control and using condoms, etc. wonder how many unwanted pregancies there have been, as well as large families. I think Muslims can practice birth control, but they feel so strongly about family and children. Children seem to define their good works on this earth, so Muslims seem to have a great number of children, but possibly for different reason than Catholics.
For some people children are also an investment in their future retirement. Children will be looking after them in their old age.
I think that each underdeveloped country needs to be evaluated individually. Some may need to give their youth better education, some may need higher paying jobs so that they don't have to create kids for free labor, some will need better health care so that they need not have so many children in the hopes that they survive, while others still will need heaps of all of these. I don't think that there is a one size fits all solution to this.
I've heard that increased prosperity in some developing countries has led people to start having more kids, simply because they can now afford to. It may be more remarkable that birth rates are so low in much of North America and Europe. I think it has to do with the time it takes people to settle into permanent jobs and stable lifestyles.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| I've heard that increased prosperity in some developing countries has led people to start having more kids, simply because they can now afford to. It may be more remarkable that birth rates are so low in much of North America and Europe. I think it has to do with the time it takes people to settle into permanent jobs and stable lifestyles. |
Which countries are they? I would be surprised as usually with increased prosperity one would find more education. Women don't necessarily like to have a great number of children and the more independent they become, the more likely they would question having a large family. | deanhills wrote: |
| Women don't necessarily like to have a great number of children and the more independent they become, the more likely they would question having a large family. |
Perhaps that's it? Empowerment of women? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Women don't necessarily like to have a great number of children and the more independent they become, the more likely they would question having a large family. |
Perhaps that's it? Empowerment of women? |
This actually makes a lot of sense. If women are subservient to men, then they most likely must submit to them whenever the man wants. And why should the man care how many kids he has, he isn't the one raising them in these countries most of the time.Education of women in particular is often associated with lower birth rates. More education helps people understand the biology of reproduction, and methods to limit it if they so chose. In addition, some women choose to focus on their careers instead of a family. In countries that don't grant women the same rights or access to education, we see increasing wealth and industrialization increases birth rates because those women don't have other options than raising a family.
Poor fertility is the cause I guess and also that evolutionary pressure could also be one of the reasons
