[DesuMaiden]

I never understood this. Why is it that the poorest people tend to have the highest fertility rates? I don't understand why developed countries have lower fertility rates than developing countries (as a general rule of thumb). It seems like most of the population growth in the world is taking place in African countries, which tend to be the poorest countries in the world.

That's all I'm asking. And that's all I have to say.

[vtsnowedin]

In a poor country without things like social security your only hope for a comfortable old age is to have grown children that will house and care for you. The more children you have the more chances you have of one surviving and becoming that care giver. That is also why societies stress respect for elders and ancestors.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

All animals evolved to survive or they didn't. The mystery is not why poor people have so many children, it's why rich people have so few.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I never understood this. Why is it that the poorest people tend to have the highest fertility rates? I don't understand why developed countries have lower fertility rates than developing countries (as a general rule of thumb). It seems like most of the population growth in the world is taking place in African countries, which tend to be the poorest countries in the world.

That's all I'm asking. And that's all I have to say.

There is definitely a strong negative correlation between education level and fertility rates. i.e. (as I interpret this statistic) more educated people have greater awareness of the costs and true responsibilities of having children, and are thus less inclined to do so.

This goes for first world countries as well as third world countries -- thus the reasoning that in Africa, children are the de-facto 401K retirement plan (i.e. being farmers and taking care of the old parents) doesn't apply universally.

It's a shame. Because the people in power (politicians now, the church in the middle ages) don't want the peasant class to have enough education to make "educated" decisions, and thus don't (aside from meaningless platitudes) truly try to make policies to ensure widespread good education. And thus the strong tendency to have more kids than makes ANY sense (overall) continues.

And the earth and society suffers. I'm sure I'll be called "mean" for saying that.

[dolanbaker]

All animals evolved to survive or they didn't. The mystery is not why poor people have so many children, it's why rich people have so few.

Rich people want to stay rich and unless they are very rich, children make them poorer and that won't do.

[SeaGypsy]

Desu, this is thread bombing. You started a virtually identical thread a few weeks ago. What is it with you? Attention queen? Memory problem?

post1223997.html#p122http://www.heritage.org/~/media/images/reports/2013/07/sr137/bg-terror-plots-july-2013-chart-3.ashx3997

[SeaGypsy]

Wouldn't be the first or only one here. Not naming anyone. As for 'high' I'm not sure in this case the term is apt.

[Shaved Monkey]

Population is relative.

It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world.
“A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.
American fossil fuel consumption is double that of the average resident of Great Britain and two and a half times that of the average Japanese.
Meanwhile, Americans account for only five percent of the world’s population but create half of the globe’s solid waste.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... on-habits/

[AgentR11]

To be fair to Desu on the thread bombing... a lot of forums have exactly the opposite preference as we do here; "necro"'ing an existing thread is considered bad form on other forums; whereas here, you're kinda supposed to find the 3 year old thread that is on the subject, and then post to it.

[DesuMaiden]

Population is relative.

It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world.
“A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.
American fossil fuel consumption is double that of the average resident of Great Britain and two and a half times that of the average Japanese.
Meanwhile, Americans account for only five percent of the world’s population but create half of the globe’s solid waste.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... on-habits/

The USA is overpopulated because the amount of resources the average person in the USA consumes is 10 to 20 times more than someone from a third world country. The USA has a population of 320 million people, but when you take into account that the average consumption per capita of natural resources in the USA is 10 to 20 times more than a third world country's citizen, then the USA is equivalent to having 3 to 6 billion people from third world countries living on this planet at the same time. Some estimate that the per capita consumption of natural resources in the USA is even higher.

USA's citizens consume more resources per capita than any other country's citizens. And the USA's population is still increasing. So the USA cannot be considered an underpopulated country. The statistic that the average USA citizen consumes 35 times more resources than someone from India and 53 times more resources than someone from China is just staggering. Some argue that the USA is equivalent 20 billion people in third world countries in terms of the resources they consume. So the USA is definitely an overpopulated country.

[dolanbaker]

To be fair to Desu on the thread bombing... a lot of forums have exactly the opposite preference as we do here; "necro"'ing an existing thread is considered bad form on other forums; whereas here, you're kinda supposed to find the 3 year old thread that is on the subject, and then post to it.

I've noticed that the moderators/admins will often merge threads with an older one of a similar subject, sometimes over-zealously when the subject has a specific event in mind.

General threads like this almost certainly have predecessors that can be appended to.

[PrestonSturges]

The USA has a population of 320 million people, but when you take into account that the average consumption per capita of natural resources in the USA is 10 to 20 times more than a third world country's citizen

The United States has 320 million people partly because of all the supposedly virtuous third world citizens that keep moving there!

[Pops]

In case the question was not merely rhetorical:

Key factors affecting a country's average birth rate and TFR are the following:

Importance of children as a part of the labor force.
Rates tend to be higher in developing countries (especially in rural areas, where children begin working to help raise crops at an early age).

Urbanization.
People living in urban areas:
usually have better access to family planning services
tend to have fewer children than those living in rural areas where children are needed to perform essential tasks.

Cost of raising and educating children.
Rates tend to be lower in developed countries, where raising children is much more costly because children don't enter the labor force until their late teens or early twenties.

Educational and employment opportunities for women.
TFRs tend to be low when women have access to education and paid employment outside the home.

In developing countries, women with no education generally have two more children than women with a secondary school education.

Infant mortality rate.
In areas with low infant mortality rates, people tend to have less children because fewer children die at an early age.

Average age at marriage (more precisely, the average age at which women have their first child).
Women normally have fewer children when their average age at marriage is 25 or older.

Availability of private and public pension systems.
Pensions eliminate parent's need to have many children to help support them in old age.

Availability of legal abortions.
According to the UN and the World Bank, an estimated 26 million legal abortions and 20 million illegal (and often unsafe) abortions are performed worldwide each year among the roughly 190 million pregnancies per year.

Availability of reliable birth control methods.

Religious beliefs, traditions and cultural norms.
In some countries, these factors favor large families and strongly oppose abortion and some forms of birth control.

http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu/~t ... tline.html

[joyfulbozo]

I never understood this. Why is it that the poorest people tend to have the highest fertility rates? I don't understand why developed countries have lower fertility rates than developing countries (as a general rule of thumb). It seems like most of the population growth in the world is taking place in African countries, which tend to be the poorest countries in the world.

That's all I'm asking. And that's all I have to say.

Great discovery. Maybe they need more hands to work and for survival they developed better fertility rate over time.