FreeDuck wrote:I think that it's kind of common wisdom that people in poorer, less developed countries tend to have more children and as a country/population industrializes they tend to have fewer children. I think that this has more to do with economies of scale than the hope that one or two will provide for the aging parents. Life is just a lot harder for individuals when there are no Wal-marts or big grocery stores or jobs or cars or washing machines or dishwasher or any other thing you can name that is a modern convenience we take for granted. When every meal has to be cooked from animals killed and food grown by the same set of people, it costs the same to feed one child as it does to feed 10. With 10, as they get older they can help grow the food, kill the animals, cook the food, and wash the dishes. Same goes for clothing. So in that case it really is the more the merrier. As they get older, if they earn any money at all it goes to the support of not just the parents but the whole family. As populations industrialize, machines and factories do the tedious work and more people can feed and clothe themselves without doing the work associated with those things. They pursue other things, earn more income, have fewer children, etc...
Not arguing FD, your post made me think of a few things....
If life is harder with no walmarts and such, why would having more children make it easier? If it's as much work to feed one extra person as 10, why have the 10 instead of 2 or 3....if the extra people weren't there, there wouldn't be as many dishes to clean up.
When children from large families get older, they now have their own children to worry about, just as their parents did. If you are making just enough to support your own growing family, there's not much or anything left over for the support of mom and dad....But, mom and dad did have a successful son, who became a doctor, or the owner of the towns only clothing store.....He has enough to help out his parents who he loves, and wants to give the rest to HIS children, or as much as possible. So, the successful son doesn't really have alot to spare to his siblings himself. Otherwise, he wouldn't be getting ahead himself.
When someone becomes successful enough that they can get out of there, they leave with their families. They don't take their siblings and their families with them.
Religion plays a big factor in how many children you have, as done a womans being to make decisions about her own body.
I don't think many women, no matter where they are from, would think "well, it's the same amount of work to feed 2 as to feed 8, so I'll just go ahead and have 8. I have the feeling, with no evidence to back it, that given her druthers, she'd settle for 2 or 3.
This whole discussion of women having less children once their country gets more developed economically is kind of creepy. Like societies shouldn't strive to improve their living conditions, and just barely get by and have babies.
Society improves, women are given the opportunity to have a voice, and what they say is...."I don't want 10 children, I want 2 or 3"
Of course, some WILL say they want 8, just as some will say they want 0.
I don't see a thing in the world wrong with that.
Bottem line is....human beings are in no danger of going extinct, unless we're hit by an asteroid.
So....each of us should make our own personal decision in the matter.
Love ya...
