Maybe this belongs in GQ . . . but there might not be any clear, factual answer.
Europeans have been pissing and moaning for a long time about their “birth dearth”: The average fertility rate in Europe is 1.45 children born per woman, well below the “replacement rate” of 2.1. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3072271/ The fertility rate in the U.S., by comparison, is 2.08. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People The Euros are concerned, rightly, I suppose, that their graying population of retirees will only get bigger, with fewer and fewer young people working to support them. But one point I’ve never heard adequately explained is, why? Why does Europe have such a low birth rate?
Maybe its reflexive…European mothers finally got tired of producing kids to be tossed into the meat grinder that was Europe in the past. Maybe their biological tickers haven’t gotten the word that Europe is a kinder and gentler place. Of course, maybe Europe is kinder and gentler BECAUSE they just don’t have the man power to spare anymore.
(The above was a joke, for those who may not have recognized it, or for those who are humor impaired).
I think that Europes birth problems have to do with their shift from a religious/agricultural society to a more secular/industrial one. That and the affluence that Europe currently enjoys I belive goes a long way to answering the OP as to why their birthrates are down. IIRC as a society becomes more affluent their birthrates go down…especially when they switch from heavy agriculture (which requires a lot of young) to an industrial society.
The US’s birthrates are higher, but we are also in decline from a birthrate perspective (at least, I THINK we are). We make up the difference in imigration (which Europe does too, though I don’t think they are as easy with it as we are).
Ha! As someone who is currently trying to go down the road of becoming an immigrant in the US, it can hardly be described as easy
Your point is valid though, I think if you looked at the birthrates compared to income levels you would find an inverse correlation, pretty much whereever you went.
Are they ? We seem to have more resistance to birth control, and more resistance to feminism. And I forgot poverty; that seems to be a factor in how many kids people have, and there’s lots more poverty in the U.S. IIRC.
Higher eduction levels and lower religion levels are associated with lower birth rates. Europe has higher eduction levels and lower religiosity than the US.
The industrial revolution happened because of technology + the excessive population from agriculture (who were also consumers) + the means to move people to work at the factories. For factory workers there were less reasons to have a large family, due to housing, and because workers had to be ready to move quickly to where work could be found.
The last century has just built upon that: less need for agriculture, more need for mobility because of increasingly specialized education/jobs. As women have been getting an education on their own, they are pursuing a career of their own. Europeans are simply settling down with a family later in life.
So I believe socio-economical reasons have played a much bigger role in this than religion, birth control, feminism or abortion.
The fact is, birth rates have been declining steadily for a very very long time all of the modern world (starting way before people stopped believing in God). It’s only now, when it has fallen below the zero line of 2.11 that this debate really seems to be picking up speed.
What’s not the reason is money. Never before has so much money been used on day care, child support, etc as now.
I don’t think there is a difference. I think the US is just lagging behind. Now, you may ask why they are lagging behind. One reason may be that Europe is more urban (Europe is one fourth of the size of the US) but with less poverty. Heterogeneous societies have lower birth rates than homogeneous societies.
I’m fairly certain that Europe, minus Russia, has roughly the same land area as the U.S., minus Alaska – but three times the population, so your point is taken.
Never heard that before. Why? And by homogeneous, do you mean in terms of class, race, or what?
[A variety of factors can influence human fertility. Some of the more important factors influencing birth and fertility rates in human populations are:
Average levels of education and affluence.
Importance of children as a part of the family labor force.
Urbanization and the centralization of information and government services.
High cost of raising and educating children.
Educational and employment opportunities for women.
[There is now a very clear correlation between religious practice and child-bearing. Couples who practise religion tend to have more children than couples who do not.
In America, for example, the states that voted for Bush have a birth rate that is 12 per cent higher than the states that voted for his rival, John Kenny.
I agree with you, but then I might ask: Why are certain types of societies/regions more conservative than others? Agricultural societies are homogeneous, people don’t move easily for education or jobs, they settle down early in life and are more bound by tradition. Now, I believe such societies are more religious because religion has a lot to do with tradition. In other words, I believe that religion follows from way of life, not the other way around. (People are going to flame me for this, I’m sure)
I also agree that conservatives are likely to lag behind the average decline, but this injects a sub-issue to the debate: AFAIK, white america has a birth rate below the average. If we remove the immigration factor, is the difference between Europe and the US really that big?
Europe: Depends on how we define it. The European Union has an area of 3.9 million SK and a population of 457 million – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_union – but that does not include Norway, Switzerland, the former Yugoslavia (except for Slovenia), Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Rumania, Bulgaria, Turkey, or Russia. If we go by this map – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_political_map.png – which defines Europe as ending at the Ural Mountains, then its area would probably equal that of the U.S. minus Alaska. Can’t seem to find a total figure, though.
