Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The neoliberal hierarchy escalation goes back to the 80ies, where the projection for Africa went off track.

das monde:

Fertility of the poor will likely meet the conditions (and demographic dynamics) of the 19th century. Their resource limitations is already a model of a wide civilization collapse. Before long, we will see how much poor population can be supported in this economic regime.

In the 19th century you have almost universal high fertility. What you also have is high death rates in most of the world, though Europe and european colonies had lowered the death rate through improved agriculture and basic hygiene. The means to sustain that low death rate are 19th century. So when you write that we are going back to the 19th century, I tell you that that means a larger population boom where it counts. Hierarchy may be a mechanism related to population increase, but if so it is a feedback mechanism for larger populations.

das monde:

As for the middle class mysteriously lower fertility - the futility of their race for sufficient wealth and status is getting yet more obvious.

There is no mystery unless you insist on forcing the observations into a evolution biology mold where it does not fit. If increased wealth led to increased number of children the post-war decades would have seen an increase in children in the west. Instead you have a continual decrease.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Sep 22nd, 2014 at 11:11:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Middle class life was supposed to bring a more relaxed atmosphere in which to enjoy having kids, but since the 'Leave it to Beaver' days this has not been the case. The increased stress of an uber-competitive society has had the effect of making people personal-agenda-based thinkers, lacking the time to relax or be altruistic enough to do the work involved in raising children.

Plus the obvious fact of pensions supplanting the need to have descendants in the paid workforce cushioning old age.

If the neolib push to shrink/deny pensions continues, one may well see more child-rearing in the (ex?)-middle class.

Another data point is the effect of extreme modernity diminishing libido, viz Japan.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Sep 22nd, 2014 at 12:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How high was fertility before the Industrial Revolution? Human population had a pretty anemic growth then - were the poor then relying on the rate selection just as much?

If there is some biological-genetic encoding of historical-demographic cycles - yeah, a very unconventional if - then it is evolutionarily rational to reproduce a lot when exceptional opportunities of some industrial growth are in sight, and to reproduce reluctantly for the decline turn. In particular, Japan has much of the private sense of little perspective, cause to bring a child for some time already. Genuine resource signaling may not be that hard to catch unconsciously.

by das monde on Tue Sep 23rd, 2014 at 03:24:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It depends, and I don't have my Livi-Bacci at hand. But I can give some rough estimates from the google books pages.

In figure 1.6 we have modern day Japan, Italy of 1921 and Cisalpine Gaul as examples of how mortality affects breeding space. From it we can see that while in modern day Japan almost all born women are also alive to be mums and thus 2 children is breaking even, in 1921 Italy only 71% of the available fertile years for women can be used. So you need about 3 children per mother just to stay even in Italy 1921. And for Cisalpine Gaul you have a mere 29%, so you need about 6 children per mother to stay even.

I would say it is the six children family that is more representative of pre-19th century agricultural society. Add 19th century food and hygiene to get to Italy 1921 and you have a population that doubles per generation. Add 20th century medicine and you have a population that triples per generation.

The good news is that we have a functioning feedback to have fewer children in an increased societal position for women, which has brought and is bringing births in most of the world down to or below reproduction levels. Births started going down in the areas that first saw the decrease in deaths already a hundred years ago. That was at the same time as the European empires were at their heights and industrialism was taking off. It is hard to fit that with some precognition of future resource hardships, in particular as other societies were just entering the same pattern. So to fit it with resource scarcity the richest societies must have felt that we were heading into poverty while poorer thought they were heading for expansion.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 23rd, 2014 at 04:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One obvious dynamics is that when people see wealthy neighbors or instances of social upward mobility, they are hot ready to mimic, capitalize on that. Interestingly, this explains both high fertility in the catching up countries, and low fertility in the developed rat race countries.
by das monde on Tue Sep 23rd, 2014 at 05:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series