US low cost living

[7Wannabe5]

Humans are 99.9% genetically similar to each other, 98.8% genetically similar to chimpanzees, and even 60% genetically similar to bananas. The greatest diversity in the human genome is still found in sub-Saharan African populations. However, although Neanderthals and Humans were 99.7% genetically similar, the Neanderthal contribution to modern human genome is largely found in those of Eurasian heritage. The fact that inbreeding in humans certainly leads to a lack of health in the individuals within that population does not necessarily imply that interbreeding necessarily increases species wide resilience. For stupidly simple example, if having blue eyes increases visual acuity for hunting in low light situations then interbreeding with dominant expression brown-eyed community might reduce the proportion of blue-eyed Siberian tundra hunters within the community below the ideal level for survival of the community as a whole, even though the recessive blue gene would still exist and occasionally occur in a community member. Also, it is quite likely that if one of my ancestors hadn't interbred with a Neanderthal, I would not have the genetic disposition towards Crohn's disease. I wonder whether hyper-immune system disorders tend to come along with Neanderthal sexual encounters in one's heritage due to only those Neanderthals who had hyper-active immune systems surviving intermixing with the novel germ-matrix of the humans? I can't quite remember the details, but I think there is also something perverse in terms of immune system response that allows for an alien human to prosper in your womb. Weird-ass fact being that some very small portion of your kids' DNA will show up in your body. after pregnancy For example, I might have some brain cells that have some of my ex-husband's DNA by way of my kids.

[7Wannabe5]

It seems more like a change of values and expectations than external circumstances (scarcity).

Yes, much more the scarcity that is actually associated with affluence, which is the relative lack of seats for those who aspire to the Elite Class. Peter Turchin in "Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration" argues that this is the tension that always ultimately leads to political collapse. Growing inequality, which always in relative terms of wealth/power/influence/access, leads to "not enough room at the top", which leads to in-fighting and corruption. So, maybe Carrie Bradshaw intuited that buying 100 pairs of expensive shoes was a better choice than having a baby that might due to reversion-to=genetic-mean be less inherently inclined to prosper under conditions of harsh meritocracy than she had within given context, therefore, possibly nudging her towards corrupt maternally-motivated behavior such as paying a poor nerd to sit for her kid's SAT.

[zbigi]

So, maybe Carrie Bradshaw intuited that buying 100 pairs of expensive shoes was a better choice than having a baby that might due to reversion-to=genetic-mean be less inherently inclined to prosper

80 years ago, Carrie Bradshaw's grandmother would not think of her potential child's prospects in terms of "prosperity". She'd be satisfied with "healthy and able to have a family of their own" (able to hold a job, not in prison etc.). The standards somehow rose in the meantime, which was detriment to fertility rates (among other factors I'm sure).

[7Wannabe5]

@zbigi: I think it is less that the standard has changed and more that the curve has changed. Great-Grandma was okay with her 5 kids having lifestyles dispersed from Grade D to Grade A, maybe D+,C,C,C-,A-. Nowadays, the B and C lifestyles have disappeared, so it's a more limited outcome space between A and D/E lifestyle. Although, it is also the case that Great-Grandma had fewer options for the utilization of her own life-energy. Most jobs for females were still poorly paid semi-subservient care-giver positions, but with less autonomy than a woman had in managing her own home. Factory girls weren't even paid enough to support themselves independently under any circumstances. What I think happened in terms of birth rates dropping more quickly than expected is that a certain degree of gender-neutrality was already established within the late 20th century wave of neoliberal global industrial expansion, creating a gulf between the expectations of one generation of females vs. the next generation of females that maybe only happened over 4 or 5 generations in some places like the U.S. In the U.S. almost everybody now has similar expectations, but the outcomes vary widely.

[chenda]

Post-WWII Polish women did not have to intuit scarcity though, they were living it every day. 6 or 7 day work week, salaries which required you to save for months to buy a winter coat or piece of furniture, flats that were unsuitably small for families (my grandma and grandpa lived with their four kids in a 300 sqft studio) - those were the realities of mothers who created the post-War baby boom, at least in Poland. The scarcity was screaming in everybody's face, and yet people decided to have families, often large ones.

I'm guessing though that infant mortality dropped sharply in EE after ww2, so perhaps Poland was simply reverting to historically normal big-families.

@7w5 - Interesting. My very limited understanding is that a new species is usually defined as to when it can no longer produce fertile offspring with whatever it diverged from, although to some extent its an arbitrary concept, as successful interspecies breeding does sometimes occur.

[Jean]

Your looking too far. Having kids is scary to everyone whith some ability to project himself into the future. Birth control availability let people act on that fear much more than refreining from having sex.
There are still countries where a condom is more exepensive than a "session" with a prostitute, and those are the country with high birth rate.
Difference beetween low birthrate countries are then less straightforward to explain.

@chenda
This definition of specy isn't consistent as you said.
Vernacularly, we call a population a specy if all intermediate toward other population are not living now.

[zbigi]

I'm guessing though that infant mortality dropped sharply in EE after ww2, so perhaps Poland was simply reverting to historically normal big-families.

That's probably the case. But that reinforces my point - why did people through history decide to have children, even though their lives were so much harder and uncertain than ours today? The answer is most likely multifaceted - both the improvement in contraception Jean mentions and change in expectations I point to are likely factors. Even introduction of consumer culture could be a factor - the life of a XIX century woman didn't have much fun in it, so having kids wasn't possibly that much of a downgrade (re: superficial enjoyment of life). Whereas now going from consumer "city girl" to a mother caring for an infant is a much bigger change, and possibly a much bigger perceived sacrifice.

[chenda]

That's probably the case. But that reinforces my point - why did people through history decide to have children, even though their lives were so much harder and uncertain than ours today? The answer is most likely multifaceted

Indeed, it wasn't a choice for most woman in history, short of remaining unmarried. Contraception was rudimentary at best and children were often a financial asset from a young age rather than a financial burden well into adulthood as they are now.

Interestingly, there is evidence of a divergence in marriage patterns between much of Europe and Asia since the late middle ages at least. In Europe, especially North-Western Europe, as many as 20% of woman remained unmarried and the average marriage age was usually higher, which obviously reduced a woman's fertility window and resulted in fewer children. Marriage was often deferred in economically harder times. This is partially attributed to woman's greater autonomy in Europe compared with Asia, where marriage was more universal and many woman married in their teens. This resulted in higher standards of living and tendency to save and accumulate.

[theanimal]

I'd recommend reading David Lancy's work for those interested in this topic, notably his book "The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattle, Changelings". As the subtitle hints at, there has been a significant shift throughout history in how children are viewed by adults. These can vary by culture, but are especially stark when examined within WEIRD societies.

Cherubs is how many people see children today in WEIRD societies. Precious, innocent, and inheretently valuable members of society. Their well being is prioritized above all else.

Children seen as chattel is particularly common in agrarian societies, where children are expected to contribute to the household from a very young age. Their value is measured in their utility and they are seen as an asset (or not).

Children as changelings is a view more common in older, pre-industrial times, where children aren't seen as fully human until reaching a certain age. If a child has a disability or is unwanted, this created an environment where adults were ok with treating children and their lives as disposable, resulting in children more commonly being neglected, abandoned or even killed.

There are variants within each and at least in the US, the culture goes further and further to the far end of the cherub style. Such a practice is taxing on parents who then end up "sacrificing" or giving up other parts of their lives to devote to their kids. This is a very new concept and is understandably off-putting to those considering children who know no other way.

[7Wannabe5]

@theanimal:

Yes, that is very true. That is why I recommend the operation of any kind of tiny family business. In the U.S., it is still legal to employ your children of any age at a reasonably safe business that is entirely owned by one or both parents. You might be surprised how quickly a 6 year old can assemble craft items for sale on Etsy when appropriately motivated, and a 10 year old dropped out of the van to spend the day at the beach with a metal detector might more than cover his own keep.