Neonatalism among educated women

Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
1) It's worth bearing in mind that when there was "historic" inequality between the sexes in East Asia, there was also above-replenishment fertility. Consider South Korea, for example: we see increased induction of women into South Korean universities in the 1980s, and we also see Korea plummet below replenishment fertility in the 80s. I won't say that the two are directly causally related, but rather, suggest that the two might be influenced by the same underlying cultural trends. Right now, the state of culture in South Korea is to the point where I recently saw a news report on women who choose to remain single their whole lives and focus on their work, with the underlying message being, "These women don't have enough saved for retirement; the government needs to help them." That shows well enough where the "Overton Window" is and has been on this matter, and how far it is from any sort of "historic inequality."
Huh. I can easily see the correlation. Historic might have been the wrong word to use, and to be honest "inequality" is such a blanket, moralizing term. I guess my own vocabulary has been influenced by these "levelling" trends.

Interesting, about the news report you mentioned... that is quite different from in my country, I think.

2) What happens if you control for population density? For example, South Korea has 515 people per square kilometer; Japan has 334 people per square kilometer; Italy has 200 people per square kilometer. By contrast, Norway has 16 people per square kilometer; Sweden has 23 people per square kilometer; Finland has 16 people per square kilometer; and your exception, Russia, has 9 people per square kilometer. Again, note that I'm not necessarily suggesting an absolute, 1-to-1 causal link. The U.K., for example, has a population density of 272 people per square kilometer, yet a higher fertility rate than Italy. Rather, I wonder if it might not be a factor, especially in the case of East Asia, where mountainous terrain and intensive urbanization actually mean those population density figures understate just how crowded the countries in question are, something that can have not only an economic impact, but also a psychological one.
Hmm. Perhaps population density does play a role, I would never have considered it unless you brought it up. Maybe. On the other hand, the UK, as you brought up... and the Netherlands, too, are among the countries with higher fertility rates in Europe. Another option altogether of course is simply that this "problem" is insoluble. Perhaps it is simply so that societies like the Scandinavian ones can deal with a higher degree of sexual-equality without collapsing, while for example South Europe (or East Asia? I am not as familiar with East Asia, but that is the general idea I have) cannot. Patriarchy might be more of a cultural necessity in some countries, and less of a cultural necessity in others - while still being somewhat of a necessity in all places, arguably.

In some way though, I am skeptical that the "genie" of female "liberation" can actually be put back into the bottle. While it is one thing to not to want the media, education system, intellectual elite etc. to borderline indoctrinate the population (in Sweden we have absurd examples of this, with government funded "gender-neutral" daycare for pre-school children. It is not common, and most sensible people laugh at it, but the fact that it even exists is unsettling) with leftist feminism and demonize traditional families... how does one arrive at that point, given the current cultural landscape? I am not sure I very much like the idea of government mandated traditional families anymore than I like the idea of government sponsored family-splintering (which is basically what we see now, in many western countries). I also am not sure such policies would be very effective. The current "liberal" policies we see are after all the result of several decades of gradual changes, and have coincided with similar and reinforcing changes to the culture. I think the best you can do is these middle of the road solutions (increased tax deductions for couples with more children for example), while simultaneously striving to change the culture and social values to something more healthy. It is a rather blasé answer, but I don't really have a better one.

Actually, I think this second process might already be happening. There are some signs that children and traditional family structures are becoming "hip" among a quite substantial subsection of young people over here, in a way that I think is perhaps not very dignified, but is nonetheless better than the alternative. Perhaps it is the first ebbings of the process that you pointed out to arkteia, that the women who choose not have children will simply... dissappear from the genepool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkteia

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
Another option altogether of course is simply that this "problem" is insoluble. Perhaps it is simply so that societies like the Scandinavian ones can deal with a higher degree of sexual-equality without collapsing, while for example South Europe (or East Asia? I am not as familiar with East Asia, but that is the general idea I have) cannot. Patriarchy might be more of a cultural necessity in some countries, and less of a cultural necessity in others - while still being somewhat of a necessity in all places, arguably.
I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collapse." Let's compare South Korea and Sweden, for example. Both of these countries are below replenishment fertility. South Korea is more below replenishment fertility than is Sweden, but that does not alter the fact that both are mathematically trending towards zero. Yes, Korea's downward slope is currently more severe, but it also has over five times as many people in a much more densely packed space, which means South Korea can actually in the short term afford to shed population. Moreover, Sweden has more or less acquiesced to mass immigration, meaning that as the population of native Swedes (whose total fertility rate may actually be lower than the national average and bolstered by that of immigrants; I have not seen hard data on this) dwindle, they will be replaced by foreigners. By contrast, South Korea has been largely resistant to mass immigration, meaning that as its population dwindles, very little political or cultural power is being ceded to foreigners. In other words, even as Korea loses native population, it will still remain "Korea" and in a position to recover more or less as what it was should the population decline level off once population density decreases, while as Sweden loses native population, it will not necessarily remain "Sweden." In this scenario, which of the two countries could be rightly said to be "collapsing?" I suppose to decide whether a country has "collapsed," one must first have a clear idea of what constitutes the essence of a country, and I imagine not everyone will agree on such a notion, so it may be hard to reach a firm, undeniable answer.

That said, it's certainly true that populations could meaningfully differ in this regard.

I am not sure I very much like the idea of government mandated traditional families anymore than I like the idea of government sponsored family-splintering (which is basically what we see now, in many western countries). I also am not sure such policies would be very effective.
This is an important point. Ultimately, while governments can shape incentive structures and provide support for particular outcomes, the first and final determinants of this matter are the residents of a country and their culture. For example, Hungary has recently seen an increase in governmental support for families, and it has also seen a recent increase in fertility. The interesting thing is that when studied, it appears that the increase in the fertility rate precedes the implementation of those policies. If one expects the driver of fertility rate to be government policy, one is bound to be confused. If, by contrast, one expects both fertility and government policy to be driven to some extent by culture, then no confusion is warranted.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,029
Sydney
Education come with high standard of living
this imply a low reproductive birth rate ,
hence the need for uneducated , high breeding migrants
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,815
I suppose it depends upon your definition of "collapse." Let's compare South Korea and Sweden, for example. Both of these countries are below replenishment fertility. South Korea is more below replenishment fertility than is Sweden, but that does not alter the fact that both are mathematically trending towards zero. Yes, Korea's downward slope is currently more severe, but it also has over five times as many people in a much more densely packed space, which means South Korea can actually in the short term afford to shed population. Moreover, Sweden has more or less acquiesced to mass immigration, meaning that as the population of native Swedes (whose total fertility rate may actually be lower than the national average and bolstered by that of immigrants; I have not seen hard data on this) dwindle, they will be replaced by foreigners. By contrast, South Korea has been largely resistant to mass immigration, meaning that as its population dwindles, very little political or cultural power is being ceded to foreigners. In other words, even as Korea loses native population, it will still remain "Korea" and in a position to recover more or less as what it was should the population decline level off once population density decreases, while as Sweden loses native population, it will not necessarily remain "Sweden." In this scenario, which of the two countries could be rightly said to be "collapsing?" I suppose to decide whether a country has "collapsed," one must first have a clear idea of what constitutes the essence of a country, and I imagine not everyone will agree on such a notion, so it may be hard to reach a firm, undeniable answer.

That said, it's certainly true that populations could meaningfully differ in this regard.



This is an important point. Ultimately, while governments can shape incentive structures and provide support for particular outcomes, the first and final determinants of this matter are the residents of a country and their culture. For example, Hungary has recently seen an increase in governmental support for families, and it has also seen a recent increase in fertility. The interesting thing is that when studied, it appears that the increase in the fertility rate precedes the implementation of those policies. If one expects the driver of fertility rate to be government policy, one is bound to be confused. If, by contrast, one expects both fertility and government policy to be driven to some extent by culture, then no confusion is warranted.
In general I have not seen any valid explanation of demography anywhere.... There are just observations ....... multiple factors seem to be in play

we observe that certain countries / regions at various periods of history have very high rates of growth enabling them to catch up with more populated regions (for example England at some point had 8 times less people than France and then caught up, now both are about equal)

conversely at other periods there is a decrease in population which cannot be solely explained by natural catastrophes

food output is definitely a factor (hence the population advantage of many asian countries where rice -which can support more people than wheat given the right conditions for the same amount of land) but not the only one....

Yet demography is a powerful determinant in history... It is because France was so populous for example that for a long time it was a dominant power in continental Europe.... then Germany was formed and its population grew and it became the dominant power in continental Europe... It is because Italy's population is a multiple that of Greece that the Romans had not much trouble taking over the greeks... .who themselves before that thanks to their demography spread massively around the med (including to Italy)... etc.....

Culture is not an explanation in itself because countries with similar cultures can have vastly different demographies
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,029
Sydney
On the "real" reproductive rate of native versus immigrant , a good indicator is first name
while this is not proven ,it seems that the native decline is stronger for male babies
but this could be due to large city living or some pollution interference with the hormones
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
To be clear, I don't especially care if any particular society wants to drive itself into extinction by handling the matter of fertility and labor in accordance with your ostensible views. If the people of, say, Israel, want to choose to continue, while the people of, say, Germany, want to opt for extinction because they care more about feminism than continued national existence, that's their collective choice.
I have no opinion of Israel as it is still in my travel plans. But to be fair, when caring about the dwindling population of Germany, we should not forget what China has done.

China is now 1.4 bln. I can not imagine where the world would have been, population-wise, had China not implemented its one-child policy and kept it till 2013.

German women were free to choose, all these years. If they chose not to have kids, it was their free choice.

I assume that for Chinese women, one-child policy came at the cost of multiple personal tragedies. We shall never ever know about them. Today, China’s demographic is skewed, and there are many negative consequences of one-child policy, but the world benefited from it.

But, of course, everyone is concerned about Germany...
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,491
Japan
To do this you need to legally force living costs ... which will include internet, electricity, food, heating, taxes, phone bills, cars, rent/mortage to be sustainable on a single average wage... so £15-16k a year uk terms, should be enough to provide modern conveniences, roof and food and two kids.
Good luck.

And forcing or “encouraging” people to have kids sounds bad.
The world is overpopulated.
Why is it all put on women to have 2 kids? Should all men father 2 kids by the time they are 30 too?
Are you encouraging people to have kids outside of marriage?
Will people be forced/encouraged to get married before 25?
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkteia
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
Let's compare South Korea and Sweden, for example. Both of these countries are below replenishment fertility. South Korea is more below replenishment fertility than is Sweden, but that does not alter the fact that both are mathematically trending towards zero. Yes, Korea's downward slope is currently more severe, but it also has over five times as many people in a much more densely packed space, which means South Korea can actually in the short term afford to shed population. Moreover, Sweden has more or less acquiesced to mass immigration [...] In other words, even as Korea loses native population, it will still remain "Korea" [...] In this scenario, which of the two countries could be rightly said to be "collapsing?" I suppose to decide whether a country has "collapsed," one must first have a clear idea of what constitutes the essence of a country, and I imagine not everyone will agree on such a notion, so it may be hard to reach a firm, undeniable answer.

That said, it's certainly true that populations could meaningfully differ in this regard.
Yes, the fertility rate of the Swedish part of the Swedish population's is quite probably somewhat lower than the national average (but our government does not collect data based on ethnicity, so certainty is difficuly here). We are still probably ca. 80% composed of people with European ancestry, that is changing rapidly, and that percentage is much lower in certain subsections of the population. For example, since 2015 we've had a "male surplus" for the first time in recorded history, no because of migration. So yes, you have a point when looking at Sweden.

All this being said... Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland all have half or less as many people with foreign background as Sweden and are, outside of Eastern Europe, some of the most immigration skeptical countries on the continent. Their birthrates are also comparable to ours, and higher even in the case of Iceland (my guess is that this is influenced by the fact that Iceland was, similarly to Ireland, relatively poor up until recently). Anyway, Norway had a birthrate of 1.85 in 2017 (Sweden was at 1.88), despite having a considerably more restrictive migration policy. So I am not sure generalizing from Sweden to all the Nordic countries is really apt.

As for Korea "affording to loose population", I am not sure I follow? Are you saying there would be less use of natural resources, food etc.? Or are you referring to the psychological aspect? If so I am curious - do Koreans really percieve themselves as living in a "cramped" society? How would you say that is expressed in Korean culture? Over here we make quite a big deal of our large forests, empty and "silent" lands to the point that such references probably take up half of our national anthem, so I suppose it wouldn't be strange if Koreans held similar feelings towards their environment as well.

As for what collapse means - I absolutely agree with whay you said. Collapse was probably a poor choice of words, "trending toward zero", a better term. On the main point, I still think there might be something to the fact that different societies can be less/ more naturally patriarchal though. Specifically in the case of Scandinavia there is some evidence that women had more power and influence than in many comparable cultures from quite a while back...Tacitus famously reports that the men seem to "listen to the women, and not because they are capable of sorcery (that would have been less eye-brow raising)!" (I might have stylized the quote somewhat from memory for dramatic effect) on... one of the 30 or so first pages of Germania, I think. I'm also quite positive there is some incident of one of the Arab historians from the crusades remarking upon the fact that "the Franks" allowed their women a conspicuous amount of freedom. I can't name a reference there though, so don't quote me on that.

This is an important point. Ultimately, while governments can shape incentive structures and provide support for particular outcomes, the first and final determinants of this matter are the residents of a country and their culture. For example, Hungary [...] If, by contrast, one expects both fertility and government policy to be driven to some extent by culture, then no confusion is warranted.
Really? The Hungarian example is very interesting. Good for them. Orban and his government have been sending out signals just as as well as they have have been caught by the waves of public opinion, so that this should be a mutually reinforcing trend would make sense but primarily driven by culture makes sense. On a somewhat different note, I think I read a study somewhere about how ethnic Poles working in the UK have replacement level fertility, while in Poland this is not the case. But that could be explained by the selection criteria for the group moving away...
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
To do this you need to legally force living costs ... which will include internet, electricity, food, heating, taxes, phone bills, cars, rent/mortage to be sustainable on a single average wage... so £15-16k a year uk terms, should be enough to provide modern conveniences, roof and food and two kids.
Good luck.

And forcing or “encouraging” people to have kids sounds bad.
The world is overpopulated.
Why is it all put on women to have 2 kids? Should all men father 2 kids by the time they are 30 too?
Are you encouraging people to have kids outside of marriage?
Will people be forced/encouraged to get married before 25?
Well, to be honest though, only certain subsections of the world are actually growing. Practically the entire developed world is either contracting or static in terms of population growth, while practically all population growth is set to take place in the poorest parts of the world.

Having 2 children per women is also good because the alternative automatically means population aging, which has all sorts of negative side-effects and could well lead to greater resource use. Unless of course you plan to reintroduce something similar to the "Ättestupa"... (one of the many arguments for why pre-Christian Europe was not a very kind place).


But I see your point though. There is something totalitarian in the government taking too great an interest in family life...