The enormous changes in birthrate following urbanization, at the start of the baby boom, and at its end, suggest that a large fraction of births are intentional.
And humans have understood where babies come from for a long time. You don’t need modern birth control to significantly increase or decrease the birth rate. Coitus interruptus is surprisingly effective. Frottage, and oral and anal sex are also great ways to be sexually intimate with very little risk of making a baby.
Sooo, we’re talking about Muslims here…right?
Don’t forget Southern Baptists.
Instinct appears to weaken in the face of experience, however. From the accounts I’ve heard from women over the years, the emotional appeal of having children usually tends to go away after the first one or two more often than not. Not always of course, but the birth rate is a statistical matter, not an individual one.
We should have parental leave and free childcare because both are beneficial to society that exists right now, a sufficient reason in itself. As an incidental effect, women’s freedom of choice means downstream from that the birthrate will adjust itself naturally. Effect on the birthrate should not be primary consideration, as long as women’s choice is preserved.
The problems (other than the ones racists have about the wrong people having babies) associated with low birth rates are individual economies problems. In an economy that is collapsing because it is becoming inhabitable low birth rate, emigration, are not the problem.
My understanding is that the problem is not that birth rates globally are dropping but that births are distributed … unevenly … with the countries more likely to have increasing populations of older retired adults having fewer productive young adults to support the economy.
Agreed with the OP that there are things that should be done in support of families, and of choice, that should be done because they are their own good, not because they are aimed at increasing or decreasing the birth rate.
We need to accept that low birth rate is the current and highly likely at least moderate term reality and figure out as individual economies how to adapt to it.
The obvious answer is already discussed here - immigration - and the reasons why some cultures won’t take to that solution, such as Japan and South Korea, as immigration is a big shift to their cultural identity. They don’t want that cultural identity to evolve.
So those economies may just be shit out of luck unless AI increases per capita productivity so much that that solves the economic issues. Also mentioned upthread. That happening smoothly? Seems improbable.
Women stopped saying no from 1940 to 1960? What happened?
Individuals make choices out of free will, but populations are as statistically predictable as a gas law in thermodynamics. So while the quoted is true, it doesn’t help as an explanation.
A major rollback of women’s rights, and an increase in persecution.
I think more likely that a lot of people died. I think in some people that causes a back of the head urge to procreate.
1950 was more oppressive than 1930? Like what for example?
I have seen papers that suggest that the availability of sulfa drugs and antibiotics causing a reduction in the infant and maternal mortality rates had a lot to do with it also.
Economic boom with overwhelmingly single-income families, back when that was more viable culturally and economically. That plus improved pre and post-natal healthcare as below.
Absolutely, also the massive rise of hospital births that more than doubled by the mid -1940’s. In 1935 less than half of births actually took place in hospitals. By 1950 those numbers were approaching 90%.
I don’t think it is particularly complicated. The 1930’s economic situation sucked hard and populations were far less urban and had far worse healthcare.
In everything from sexual freedom and what clothing was allowed, to what jobs women were allowed to take, to the passage of restrictive and punitive laws aimed at women.
The 1950s are famous as a period of extreme social oppression for anyone not straight white men, after all.
To put numbers to that:
The discovery and widespread use of antimicrobial agents (e.g., sulfonamide in 1937 and penicillin in the 1940s) and the development of fluid and electrolyte replacement therapy and safe blood transfusions accelerated the declines in infant mortality; from 1930 through 1949, mortality rates declined 52% (4). The percentage decline in postneonatal (age 28-364 days) mortality (66%) was greater than the decline in neonatal (age 0-27 days) mortality (40%). From 1950 through 1964, infant mortality declined more slowly (1).
My mother (who had four children during the baby boom) originally wanted 6. After 3, she decided that was enough. It turns out that children are a lot of work. After the 4th she had her tubes tied. We were all accidents, my parents sucked at birth control.
Which is kind of a good thing for anyone in a position to say that. The alternative is oblivion.
But while reductions in infant mortality were real, the previous rate was low enough that I don’t think reducing it could have had that dramatic an effect. It isn’t like women in the 1930s were losing half their infants. And as previously noted the birth rate in the 1930s had declined sharply from its previous high at the turn of the century, when infant mortality WAS higher.
Anecdotally, but without some hard cites it becomes mere presumption. Women’s clothing for example?
I’ve done my bit for humanity. Had two amazing children, but got a vasectomy shortly after the second.
I think that that is the most responsible thing I could do. Plus, condoms are icky and womens birth control has loads of unpleasant side effects.
Sadly, though, now divorced, it is back to condoms, as I don’t really want an STD.
It was the Great Depression, which spanned a literal decade from 1929-1939. Wandering from location to location looking for work as you scrabble for a crust of bread to keep your stomach pain at bay long enough to live another day to search for another dirty crust of bread to keep your stomach pain at bay to live another day to scrabble for another dirty crust of bread…oh, look! Half a rotted potato! Huzzah!
Even beyond the practicality of having children in the grim dystopia at least some people were enduring, situational depression can do a number on normal libido. It was a double-plus non-good time to have kids.
The 1930s was only when the thirty-year decline bottomed out. That still leaves 1905-1929 to explain.