I’m sorry, I’ll get right on it.
I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions in this thread, but this is worth mentioning. While, it may not be true on a national level, it certainly is true on a personal one. Poor people have more kids. Very rich people have more kids (if less than poor people). As do high income professionals. Its the large middle and working class types who lose out, as for them child rearing is too expensive and they rarely qualify for state aid.
As already mentioned, all of the factors that lower fertility rates around the world are present in Europe, and have been for a long time. There are a few points missing from the thread thus far.
-
Contraception got much easier in the 20th century, but it actually goes back a long way; in fact, some effective techniques have been lost over time. Other factors, mentioned earlier in the thread, increased the desire for contraception.
-
“Eurabia” is a myth. It’s not going to happen. Only about half a million immigrants from the Muslim world settle in Europe each year legally, and a much smaller number come illegally. Their fertility rates are somewhat higher than that of native Europeans, but not by much. There is some regression towards the mean over time, and, perhaps more significantly, many of the sending countries have seen rapid and steep drops in fertility rates. Also, and this is often overlooked, if Europeans don’t want Muslim immigrants, well, there sure are plenty of non-Muslims in the world who would love a chance to live and work in Europe.
I think this comment also has alot to do with the issue of people having fewer children. You calling children "screaming poop-machines " says that you, and many others actually HATE children. And from what I hear many areas in Europe are downright hostile towards them and do things like banning them from certain places and teaching the young people that all children are is trouble. This article discusses some of this.
You know, thats pretty sad. I know many couples who have good careers AND children. Yes, it often requires having someones career set back for a few years but in the long run its a good payoff.
Plus is a career all life is about? Making money so we can have a nicer car and better retirement? Sadly thats what society is telling our young people. Make lots of money and dont have kids because (gasp) you will have to do without a few things.
Hell yes as a parent I’ve had to go without some things. But for me having children was more important than money.
I think a lot of people are frankly ambivalent about having kids, but they have them because it’s a societal expectation to have them.
I don’t think it’s sad that people are pushing up against this pressure. It’s to be expected as people become more educated and determined to have their own intentions and goals in life.
Japan is not a welfare state, though.
This. Freedom of choice is always good.
In a recent thread about an imaginary perfect male contraceptive several people suggested it’d drastically cut the birth rate as all the reluctant would-be fathers could veto the kids they don’t really want but are currently pressured into having. In fairness, many people vehemently disagreed with the proposition.
Which merely demonstrates that some people want kids, and some don’t. And that many people assume everyone else thinks like they do. Imagine that!
You must not frequent race-realist threads, to be this surprised.
You may have missed in other posts on this board that I have two kids. And I love them quite a bit. But if parents are honest with ourselves, nobody enjoys changing a dirty diaper at two in the morning. I don’t blame anyone that doesn’t want to take on that kind of responsibility.
And I think you missed the rest of my point as well. I have a career, as well as my wife, and we still find time for our kids. But not everyone wants kids, and having that successful career and all the money and time becomes much easier without children. It’s no surprise that as children stopped becoming a retirement policy, fewer people had them.
That sounds a lot more like America than Europe (and that article seems to be about America, too) - the Europe I know has things like years of paid parental leave - that hardly sends a “kids are unwanted” message. I know (from my limited experience) that kids were everywhere, parents took their kids everywhere, classes of schoolkids were at all the museums and castles and galleries and cheese factories I visited this last time.
But that’s anecdotal and perhaps your experience of Europe is different - care to cite it?
You have quoted a US magazine article slamming a book called "“The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless” as evidence that Europe is prone to hostility towards children.
Do you have any actual evidence that supports your claim, or is it as ethereal as your claim that it’s a sad, worrying thing that immigrants may have several children.
Also, can I ask if you’re American? If so could you advise of which ethnicity.
But the initial claim was about “at a national level”.
Fertility rates in the richest European countries aren’t great, but they tend to be a bit higher than in the poorest ones.
Everything you say is true though, and developed countries (and pretty soon, middle income ones as well) are going to need to figure out ways to encourage people to have more children. I think much more state intervention in childrearing, so as to reduce the opportunity cost of raising children, is probably what’s needed.
Ok, didnt mean to upset anyone. I was looking for a cite and couldnt find a better one. Maybe I’ll have more time to look later.
You have to admit though some people are pretty vocal about their child free status.
No; the world’s population has to stop growing eventually, thus making the idea of a “population pyramid” with a perpetually larger base essentially a pyramid scheme. Right now, a declining global population is exactly what’s needed, if anyone is going to have a livable planet in the future. In the meantime, labor shortages in country after country (as falling fertility takes hold) will create great opportunities for migrants around the world, thus reducing poverty, and purchasing more of the things that drive down fertility everywhere.
Yes, because of the ubiquitous and exasperating rudeness to which they/we are subjected.
I don’t want a growing world population. I want a stable one (and as far as possible, stable on a country by country level). Which means a fertility rate of a little over 2.
Well, when the moos-lims take over Europe, don’t pretend you weren’t warned!!!
Now, go forth and be fruitful like God commanded!
OK so no cite to support that stance. Could you please answer my question on your ancestry.
So?
Why? Maybe stable on a county by county level would be better? Or we’ll keep the population stable on an acre by acre basis to maximize whatever benefits you think that will bring?
Your stance is basically “no one should ever move”. 
I think it’s perfectly normal and I don’t understand why other nationalities (often Americans) get so bent out of shape about the lack of a shit-kids-out-like-rabbits mentality.
My wife and I aren’t having kids because we don’t fancy the responsibility of raising another human being and preparing them to face an increasingly craphole world. My sister and her husband have had one kid because they feel differently.
My parents, my wife’s parents and my brother-in-laws parents all chose to raise 2 kids because that seems to have been the prevailing mood about 35-40 years ago. My mother was an only child and my dad was one of 3, and their generation was born during/just before ww2. I have to go back to my grandparent’s generation (born around ww1) to get to the large families that you seem to expect people to produce.
My maternal grandfather was one of 11 kids, which I quite frankly find horrifying - great-grandma must have walked bow-legged and slaved 25 hours a day with a brood like that.