Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dalewyn | Hacker News Reader

We don't even need to look back into history, right here today poorer regions have higher birth rates.

Ergo: A poorer society has more children. A richer society has fewer children.

It's a phenomenon that continues to flabbergast me.

Logic would seem to indicate that a more plentiful environment (a richer society) would lead to more children due to a surplus of life's necessities. But the reality is the exact opposite.

I don't know why this is the case, but it's flabbergasting. It almost seems like evolution strives to eliminate those that find too much success.

View on HN

Perhaps - 1) The people in the richer society are exposed to more ideas and options than the people in poorer societies, which makes them evaluate having/not having children vs "have them because everyone does it" 2) The people in richer societies have a social security net/wealth to fall back on in their old age, whereas the poorer societies are always "hand to mouth" without having the luxury of any retirement savings - all their time and energy goes just for basic survival - and they need children to support them in their old age.

>Logic would seem to indicate that a more plentiful environment (a richer society) would lead to more children due to a surplus of life's necessities.

Based on seeing my wife’s experience of pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding, without any complications, I would not agree the above statement.

Based on speaking to my women members of my family, friends, and the data, it is evident that childbirth/child rearing is a costly undertaking, not measurable in any “normal” amount of money.

So logically, I would expect women to have a couple kids (due to wanting to be mothers, or whatever), but each additional kid is at a very high marginal cost (on their body).

I would posit poorer regions have higher birthrates simply because women lack the knowledge and power to obtain and use contraception. Even in poorer regions, giving women freedom (economic freedom and security such that they are deciding when to get pregnant), and access to contraception will make the birthrate drop.

>>> A poorer society has more children. A richer society has fewer children. >>>It's a phenomenon that continues to flabbergast me.

Poor people can't afford hobbies, vacations, or VR headsets. So they spend what leisure time they have doing a highly-rewarding activity that is free: fucking. Do that enough times, and eventually people stop pulling out.....and boom population growth.

Also wealthier people with hobbies perhaps become inherently a bit anti-social (maybe I'm projecting...)? The value proposition of dopamine-delivering activities exceeds the perceived value of childrearing?

Just my 2 Yen...

Do the richer societies actually have surplus as in the money used to buy these things? At least on the middle-class or working class level? Sure they can afford more stuff than poorer countries, but do they have higher relative surplus? While they are richer, many things are lot more expensive in relation.

Is the surplus actually enough to feed, house, cloth, entertain etc. the children? Maybe poorer have cheaper costs thus their surplus can better afford this as the quality desired is lower?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com