Is there a dependence on the number of children in the family and its well-being?

a reply to: RussianTroll

Russias birthrate is one of the lowest in the world. Is that why you have invaded Ukraine, to steal their children? Maybe you should focus more on your own country's impending collapse instead of worrying about what the west is doing. We will be fine. Our culture and society is far more adaptable than yours.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Hello ATS!
......

Please explain this paradox to me. Why did traditional families calmly manage and manage 17 children, while modern families believe that children are insanely expensive, so that it is wiser for middle-income spouses to limit themselves to a cat or a dog?

There are 3 main reasons for the decrease in the size of families over--let' say--the last 125 years or so, and they're all mutually reinforcing, in my opinion. They're also not limited to Western countries, either. Those 3 reasons are industrialization, urbanization, and the information revolution.

Let's start with the information revolution, which we might say started around 1450, with the Gutenberg Press. That allowed the relatively cheap and prolific distribution of written knowledge by about a factor of 10 only 50 years later. By another century or so scientists and scholars throughout Europe and the greater world were routinely exchanging knowledge freely in written form and that set the stage for the so-called Scientific Revolution. By another century or so after that, the Scientific Revolution was complete, which set the stage for the first Industrial Revolution. Knowledge learned and disseminated in the Scientific Revolution transformed economic production from hand methods to machines, introduced chemical manufacturing and iron production, increased use of water power and steam power, allowed invention of machine tools, and the rise of mechanized factories, steam locomotives, and ships, etc. Economic output greatly increased, and the result was an unprecedented rise in population and the rate of population growth. So industrialization pushed most of the economic productivity of a nation away from muscle power and toward mechanical power and brain power.

Industry required large concentrations of population located near the factories in which they worked. At the same time, large surpluses of goods and services concentrated in population centers--such as education and cultural activities like art, theater, restaurants, etc. caused those centers to be more attractive places to live for many people. So urbanization inevitably followed industrialization. In 1800, only about 6% of the US population lived in urban environments. By 1900, that had gone up to 40%. By 2000, it was 80%. It is on track to reach 90% by 2050.

All 3 of these factors disincentivize large families. In a rural, pre-industrial setting, children are basically free labor, and muscle-powered labor is where most of the economic activity is in those societies. Furthermore, most of the knowledge and skills needed to herd animals or plant and harvest crops can easily be transferred from average parents to average children at a fairly early age, so children become economic assets fairly early in their lives. In urban settings, there are no farms or ranches for kids to work on and living spaces are highly constrained. In that setting, kids basically become expensive pets, unable to earn their own keep until at least the teenage years. Furthermore, in a post-industrial society, the ability to personally plant and harvest wheat or milk a cow does not add much economic value even if it is available as a job. In a modern society, at least 12 years of education is necessary to give a kid the basic ability to add economic value to society. And frankly, educating a kid to be high functioning in modern society such as in STEM subjects is beyond the capability of average parents. We need specialized educational institutions like universities to prepare kids to be able to contribute at high levels.

And, to come full circle, the scientific knowledge revolution is what has given individual women and men effective birth control methods so they can exercise more control over whether and when to procreate. Given that ability, more people are choosing to invest in quality child-rearing instead of quantity.

And collectively, we're not going back to the old ways anytime soon.

Forget about children . . .
it is insanely expensive for ADULTS
who live in an imperial-capitalistic society.
In a natural environment, there is more
opportunities for families to thrive.
Take a look at the Amish or Mennonites.
Imperial-capitalism is the downfall,
and will be the downfall of all society.

__________________

originally posted by: burritocat
a reply to: RussianTroll

Russias birthrate is one of the lowest in the world.

Don't bother us with facts. It's still an expansionist model which RT is proposing.

a reply to: RussianTroll