Population: Europe declines while US grows, why?

Just off the top of my head, I would guess our immigrants are more fertile than theirs.

To me it seems when women are given more options, they are choosing not to have as many children.

I agree with Chai, plus many European women opt for late motherhood,
focusing on education and career first. Immigration and density has played
a role in it too. There aren't enough preschool places available for working
mothers, plus not enough after school care. High taxation and cost of
living increases are also contributing factors for the declining birth rate.

The United States has a huge influx from hispanic nations who are
predominantly catholic with a high fertility rate, plus they are and contra birthcontrol.

When you say options, I assume you are talking primarily about job options.

So does that mean that the more chances women are given in a society to be economically productive, the lower the birth rate goes. And in Europe for example, it drops below the rate necessary to maintain the society.

That seems like a bleak cycle for womens rights in the long run.

Why?

Because your conjecture leads to the conclusion that economic options for women leads to destructive population declines in society. That system is unstable in the long run.

No, no, you said that it is a bleak cycle for womens rights - thus my question.

Economic options for women are neither bleak nor destructive, it gives
women finally the freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives.
Every women that is tied down with three or four children will be not only
dependent on her husband for support, she also won't have the same
career opportunities, and financial rewards other women have.

By the way, maternity leave of up to 5 years is offered in many European countries and either the mother or the father can take the hiatus, however,
very few fathers take the opportunity to stay home with their children,
fearing career setbacks. Tough luck!

The poorest countries in the world are the ones in which women have many children. The richest countries are where women chose to have two or less children. I don't think less children leads to instability, although it can lead to a shortage of native workers for a time.

I saw a study that concluded that when women are given a choice about having children most chose to have two.

Well, that's a good point, but no, I wasn't primarily thinking of that.

In no particular order....
Birth Control options....methods are now more reliable, cheaper, safer. It was not all that long ago, just a couple of generations, were birth control pills for instance, did not even exist.

Women don't need permission to get or use these methods/devices. It's up to them. If they are married, it would be nice to discuss w/ their husband, but they are able to contol their own birth rate, and space births. If you are single, it's entirely up to you.
I don't think women in general in Europe feel much obligation to adhere to the Catholic Churches ban on birth control. Do they?

Education. Woman are spending many more years in school than a few generations back....delaying reproduction, reducing the number of children.

Careers or not...Women are saying..."hey, I'm not just a baby machine" There's no (or not as much) fear of infant mortality.....one does not need to have 5 children to ensure 2 survive. Also, there's not the concern that you need children to "help on the family farm" type of thing.



Is there any information out there where European women are being asked directly why they are choosing to have less children?


Destructive population declines....I don't know, I just don't buy that (completely). Birth rates go in cycles. I'm willing to speculate that the children of these smaller families are going to have larger ones of their own.

Totally unscienfic observation:
My husband came from a family of 11 kids...all but 2 of them had one or two children, or none.
In my family there were 5 children. All of us are done having kids...2 of us didn't have any, and the other 3 have only produced a total of 5.

It is to do with our Christian culture having run its life course. All cultures are like that. It's late autumn now and winter fast approaches. The signs are everywhere. Confusion.

Americans will suffer from the "revenge of the oppressed". The white American will disappear into the native landscape.

When "Herrenmoral" prevails the game is up. The matriarchy prevailed for hundreds of thousands of years without one jot of progress. The Bible is about the birth of the patriarchy and resulted in the luxury and self indulgence of Calamity Jane's superficial and self-oriented viewpoints which represent a return to matriarchy and the decline of the West, as Spengler called the phase we are in 100 years ago. We have gone soft.

I have seen projections of Russia vanishing as a country due to population decline within 100-150 years. There is talk of Europe being taken over by Islam.

The final sentence of Professor Germaine Greer's (Arch-feminist) latest pronouncement in the Sunay Times reads-

"Girls in our time are in trouble; raunch is not the half of it."

A few quotes from her article-

"...very small groups of women in New York and London staged creative (that's a joke) and amusing demonstrations that got rather too much (that's understatement) media attention."

Those "very small groups" spawned slightly larger groups which then took over media and left the other 99% of women baffled.

"Once the real difference between men and women has been elided, fantasy difference will balloon, but it has no form of expression beyond appealing to an imaginary admirer, who is also the consumer."

When a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman you have elided the difference between men and women to >0.

"The most overstimulated generation that ever trod the earth is running on empty."

"The woman of the 21st century has got to be a female impersonator; she exists to mime sexual readiness, not to experience it."

An everyday experience.

"Excess in erotic display......as a response to the fading of sexual desire."

Talking about Ariel Levy and her book Female Chauvinist Pigs she says-

"She is teasing her own public, and at the same time cossetting their Brahminical notions of their own inherent superiority."

The trouble is that they don't know they are being teased. It is music to their flappers.Telling them what they want to hear.

"Pornography is not just part of our culture, it is our culture."

"Pornography is the cultural expression of capitalism."

Obviously.

"The outcome of the negotiation, ideally brief and impersonal, is immediate gratification."

And the bottom line principle of Faustian culture is (sorry-was) deferred gratification and care for the future. And every facility in your lifestyles has come out of Faustian culture.

"I never said it (feminism) was going to be pretty."

"..but everything must be tried before the fraud of "equality" can be seen for what it is."

And finally, and worth repeating-

"Girls in our time are in trouble; raunch is not the half of it."

Not even 10%.

So make the most of it girls. Your grand-daughters will have to fend for themselves.

I think it means she is repenting.

I dont hold much of the rest of his post, but here Spendius at least alludes to the point that separates the US and Europe. The US is more religious, and more conservative in values (or at least, has a greater proportion of the population who is). All the rest - birth control being used more in Europe, women marrying later and having children later, often choosing to develop a career first, families having fewer children, etc, all stem from that, I'm guessing.

Child care options (maternity leave, daycare etc) still need much improvement, but that I think is true both sides of the pond. I think in many European countries it should be as available, and probably cheaper, than in the US, so I dont think that explains the difference.

The original article I cited seems to indicate otherwise. They strongly imply that population decline at a certain rate is a "bad thing" (to the degree that it adversely effects the status quo).

I'm all for womens rights, and for improved economic status for everyone. I never expected this question to lead to the idea that improved options for women might lead to dramatic population declines (adversely affecting various societies).

It was your comment combined with the statistics from the article which implied that possibility.

And you think that is the primary cause of the difference in population growth? Are you saying that more secular populations tend to reproduce less?

I read an underlying fear of the hordes in the idea of destruction encased in a lot of these discussions. Ironically, Europe's populations as are the US's are products of waves of various hordes over time.

Hordes? You mean immigration?

At this point in history, we have different regions of population density and economic status which are trying to balance themselves (immigration). But in the long run, as population movement leads to homeostasis, the planet itself will face challenges with reproductive population flow as it relates to societal structures (economics and system stability). I'm more curious about the underlying long term impact of reproductive rates on societal structures than I am about the temporary movement of "hordes" from place to place.

I'm not sure why you Wouldn't see giving women options wouldn't lead them to exercising the option not to have more children....

If they are going to exercise the options of:
using birth control
getting further education
making their own decsions
How could that NOT lead to a population decline?

I guess to me that seems pretty obvious.

I mean, look at these 2 scenerios....

80 years ago...
No birth control pills, abortions more dangerous, use of birth control left to the male, i.e. condoms.
Woman rarely went to university, and if they did, were not allowed to acheive a degree. Look at Albert Einsteins first wife. She attended class with him, had the same or superior intellect, but was not allowed to graduate, or work for money.
Careers? Sure, that's in the mix too. Due to the above, they are able to venture forth and contribute more to their society.

Today....well, look where we are.

What exactly to you think the detriments of having a (temporarily) declining population would be?
More food can be produced than we can eat already.
The advance of technology doesn't depend on the number of people.

I'm much more worried about parts of the world where the population is exploding, and are using old technology that is polluting our environment at a much greater rate now than we are.

Immigration? We are all immigrants from somewhere, sometime...don't kid yourself that you're not.

I am open to listening and learning what the dangers of a declining population would be.

Thanks, this is a very interesting thread.

More secular and more prosperous (poor countries tend to have high birthrates), that seem to roughly be the two determinants.