Neonatalism among educated women

Mar 2019
7
East Indies
#21
I think the priority right now is to reduce birth rates in countries with high birth rates.... it is beyond ridiculous to whine about climate change for example without addressing the growing population issues (the earth population has tripled since the 1950s) .... Conversely I do not see a problem with decrease in population...... if the earth population goes back to around 2 billion what would be the big deal ?
Its not about the global population, its about per country population. If Earth is a unified government with free geographic mobilization between regions then your point would stand true. Unfortunately we are still in the middle of the era of disparate nation-states thus we must look at this issue not from a global point of view but from a country's point of view.

For a country to be able to function properly they need workforce to keep the country afloat. In order to have a significant workforce one must be able to produce one first. That is by having offsprings and then educate them with the necessary knowledge so that they can be suitable to replace their predecessor when the time comes.

The problem rise when a country is not able to produce enough new generation or their age are not sufficient enough yet to join the labour. To solve this action the government could try accepting migrant workforce but well......if you haven't been living inside a cave up until now you should know that the Western World and Other Developed Worlds, the places with the lowest fertility rate are not too....."pleased" with the arrival of other "foreigners" to stay within their respective country.

The low level of supply of the workforce could also lead to the increasement of their demand and subsequently their price up the roof therefore causing quite an economic situation which could lead out to some great changes reminiscent of the labour situation of the post-black death world, for the better or worse.

So there you have it, Between low population growth and xenophobic tendency, the developed worlds are currently sitting on their 'upside-down pyramids" waiting for the inevitable unless they changed their ways, fast and decisively.
 
Last edited:
Likes: arkteia

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,943
#22
Its not about the global population, its about per country population. If Earth is a unified government with free geographic mobilization between regions then your point would stand true. Unfortunately we are still in the middle of the era of disparate nation-states thus we must look at this issue not from a global point of view but from a country's point of view.

For a country to be able to function properly they need workforce to keep the country afloat. In order to have a significant workforce one must be able to produce one first. That is by having offsprings and then educate them with the necessary knowledge so that they can be suitable to replace their predecessor when the time comes.

The problem rise when a country is not able to produce enough new generation or their age are not sufficient enough yet to join the labour. To solve this action the government could try accepting migrant workforce but well......if you haven't been living inside a cave up until now you should know that the Western World and Other Developed Worlds, the places with the lowest fertility rate are not too....."pleased" with the arrival of other "foreigners" to stay within their respective country.

The low level of supply of the workforce could also lead to the increasement of their demand and subsequently their price up the roof therefore causing quite an economic situation which could lead out to some great changes reminiscent of the labour situation of the post-black death world, for the better or worse.

So there you have it, Between low population growth and xenophobic tendency, the developed worlds are currently sitting on their 'upside-down pyramids" waiting for the inevitable unless they changed their ways, fast and decisively.
Again "de population" is not a problem.... perpetual growth is neither historically a rule, nor desirable.... As for the workforce, with robots and AI large numbers are no longer needed and more and more jobs will disappear....
 
Likes: arkteia

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,943
#23
Question: what is the effect of divorce ?

One can make an assumption that the mere possibility of easy divorce is a disencentive to have children, especially for women....Women know that if they have children, they will be very vulnerable in case of a divorce..... and it is going to be very difficult for them to find another husband...
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,882
Korea
#24
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.
I mean it in several ways. First, with a higher base population, one can shed more people in absolute terms while still having a reasonably large population, and one's base population is also diluted less by the same number of immigrants. Second, there are two major resources which I would say are interacting poorly with our current population level: desirable land, and air quality. Our current population density makes housing relatively quite expensive (which probably has a negative impact on fertility in its own right), and providing adequate goods, services, transportation, and energy for that populace has negatively impacted air quality. Finally, I do strongly suspect there's some psychological impact. Urbanization in general seems to result in both lower fertility and in increased stress; packing large numbers of people into relatively small spaces does something to them. So long as South Korea doesn't give in to western pressure and start importing massive numbers of foreigners, and sticks to its integration-based immigration system, a moderate population decline in the short term followed by a leveling off would probably be a positive thing from the perspective of quality of life and long-term sustainability, which was the notion I was attempting to express in perhaps an overly-compact fashion.

On the main point, I still think there might be something to the fact that different societies can be less/ more naturally patriarchal though.
I agree with you that this is a real possibility. One of the problems with the modern social sciences is that they often draw data from western, educated, fairly affluent university students out of expediency and then try to extrapolate those results onto humanity at large, yet differences are often enough "more than skin deep," and the psychological patterns of one group do not necessarily apply to all groups. It's entirely possible, even probable, that particular groups have different optimal modes of life; that "medicine" to one group is "poison" to another. This is why, on a personal level, I have an appreciation of diversity on a global scale, but am somewhat suspicious of trying to force it on a local scale: the world has plenty of room for many different modes of life, but forcing practitioners of those modes of life to share a political space could ensure constant conflict or the eventual eradication of one of them if their optimal modes of life are incompatible. In any case, while it's reasonable enough to speak in general terms in this casual environment, we should all keep your point here in mind.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,882
Korea
#25
Question: what is the effect of divorce ?

One can make an assumption that the mere possibility of easy divorce is a disencentive to have children, especially for women....Women know that if they have children, they will be very vulnerable in case of a divorce..... and it is going to be very difficult for them to find another husband...
I read a study once which found that the liberalization of divorce laws in any particular region coincided with a sizable drop in fertility rates, which matches the expectations you express here.
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,637
Europe
#26
Its not about the global population, its about per country population. If Earth is a unified government with free geographic mobilization between regions then your point would stand true. Unfortunately we are still in the middle of the era of disparate nation-states thus we must look at this issue not from a global point of view but from a country's point of view.

For a country to be able to function properly they need workforce to keep the country afloat. In order to have a significant workforce one must be able to produce one first. That is by having offsprings and then educate them with the necessary knowledge so that they can be suitable to replace their predecessor when the time comes.

The problem rise when a country is not able to produce enough new generation or their age are not sufficient enough yet to join the labour. To solve this action the government could try accepting migrant workforce but well......if you haven't been living inside a cave up until now you should know that the Western World and Other Developed Worlds, the places with the lowest fertility rate are not too....."pleased" with the arrival of other "foreigners" to stay within their respective country.

The low level of supply of the workforce could also lead to the increasement of their demand and subsequently their price up the roof therefore causing quite an economic situation which could lead out to some great changes reminiscent of the labour situation of the post-black death world, for the better or worse.

So there you have it, Between low population growth and xenophobic tendency, the developed worlds are currently sitting on their 'upside-down pyramids" waiting for the inevitable unless they changed their ways, fast and decisively.
You're right it isn't 'free geographic mobilization' of migrants because the vast majority of migrants arriving in Europe now are men. Unskilled uneducated men, many of them with backwards attitudes toward women. The women in Europe and the women they have left behind
Then you have the nerve to complain how the West are unnaccepting of this dangerous volatile situation

To the posters suggestion that childcare should be increased. Who Is this supposed to benefit? Certainly not the mothers and their pre school children. All major studies show that pre school childcare is bad for children. Especially for boys. The studies show it makes them aggressive. Poor attachments and high levels of stress hormones at being separated from the normal primary carer (the mother). No thanks. I would rather live in a shed on gruel than put a very young child or grandchild of mine through that and I know many other women who feel the same way.

If you want women to have more children then you have to pay them a wage to stay at home. Give them an income. Who pays you say? You do, the father, by direct taxation which is then given back to the mother or even grandmother via government. You think this is radical? Well this is what already happens but you pay via taxes to subsidise the dumping of pre school children in childcare. So why not pay the mother instead and end this cruel USA style childcare system. Cruel for the child and the mother. I don't think men realise just how much women agnonise over the decision to place their very young children with strangers and return to work .
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,637
Europe
#27
If her eggs fail, have not you heard about egg adoption? Another high IQ woman who has ten frozen and may need two or three, will donate.

About jobs. Women control fertility now. They know the allure of having own job (which soon will be paid at the same level as a guy's one, thank god) as compared to sitting at home, waiting for "the provider" to come back. And let us be honest, a one-income family economically is rapidly sinking pretty low. So instead of having three kids, renting a house and sending kids to a school in mediocre neighborhood, the woman thinks, OK, let me have one kid but provide him with as much as I can. So that he does not complain that he has no money for college.
And also - how about talking a woman into producing kids and a man, her partner, into sitting at home and raising them? Both propagate their genes. It is unfair that a guy gets the chance of career advancement and a woman is merely changing diapers.

P.S. two more points. The most recent study about declining birth rate was done in Oregon. Women there specifically mentioned not being secure in the future.

Now, what would a high-IQ university grad woman do with Oregon job market? She could move to the Silicone Valley where marriage market favors women and marry a high-IQ-IT guy who can provide for her kids. She'll mate her DNA with his DNA, and at least there will be the incentive to leave the posterity as guys there are paid well. So I think there will be tiny enclaves where fertility rate will be at least at sustainable level. But - women with high IQ want to live in style, and I don't blame them, so these will be the places with stable jobs.

(And deserving men). When Brandon Tarrant complained about white women not reproducing in his manifesto, I thought, he was one of the prime examples why! A guy without University degree, a gamer without a decent job that could provide for the family, investing inheritance into traveling but bringing back killer's ideas and some weird imaginary world, total waste of society's resources, what university graduate woman would want to reproduce with him, sorry?

'[mothers] sitting at home...' !
Sitting? Is this what you think mothers do? Sit around the house on their arse all day?

Also, what is this 'academic achievement = intelligence/high IQ' nonsense.
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,687
Seattle
#28
'[mothers] sitting at home...' !
Sitting? Is this what you think mothers do? Sit around the house on their arse all day?

Also, what is this 'academic achievement = intelligence/high IQ' nonsense.
Sorry, “sitting” at home is not an English phrase. You are right. Just a carbon copy translation.

As to the equation, where did you see it?

Why do guys get so upset with the mere idea of a man raising kids?
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,637
Europe
#29
Sorry, “sitting” at home is not an English phrase. You are right. Just a carbon copy translation.

As to the equation, where did you see it?

Why do guys get so upset with the mere idea of a man raising kids?
Honestly? In my opinion because they can't cope with it. Its not their fault, it's just the way things are. They don't have the same attachment as a mother has to a baby/toddler. That's not to criticise men but I just don't think they have the same type of bond, or at least not until the child is older but by then childcare isn't so much an issue because the child spends all day at school.
This is another thing. Working hours for women should be easier to fit in with school hours. I don't understand why there is no common sense about this obvious solution to childcare
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,687
Seattle
#30
I don’t believe women should be pushed to stay at home, or to have kids too soon. Let us look at another side of it, divorces.

Here is what I see, often in my generation.
Women stay at home. To raise kids, because daycare for two or three kids is expensive, because a woman’s salary minus daycare and taxes is the same as staying at home, because mom taking care of the kids is better for the kids.

And these moms, they do good jobs. They are very busy. And then the kids leave houses for colleges. And men, the fathers, the providers, reach midlife crisis. So what do they do, these men?

They either start pushing women to find a job because they are tired of being single providers, or they complain that wives have not acquired any skills to be gainfully employed (how should a woman respond to the phrase, “dead-end street”?). And often, they find someone employed and slightly younger, and divorce the mother of their children. How typical is it? 42% of first marriages will end in divorce, they say.

God saves women to whom it happened. As the kids are grown, no child support, and spousal support ends in three -four years. And what happens to the women who invested their lives into creating families, and end up with nothing? Where do they end up? Stacking up shelves somewhere, I think.

And what do their girls, millennials, and now, gen Z, learn? Not to rush to get married. Live for themselves first. Hold on to careers.

And among the millennials, the divorce rate is dropping.

The United States divorce rate is dropping, thanks to millennials