It's prosperity in general

Looking at France though which had its decline as one of the first countries it's already starting to reverse (even accounting for muslims)

Do you mean that native french are having increasing birthrates? where do you even get that data, i thought in france they dont separate people by race in any statistics

They don't but immigration wasn't thing which caused the increase afaik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition I remember learning about this model in geography class and it pretty much holds up regardless of social norms/laws etc.

If you're going to have a prosperous society you'll experience rapid population growth at first, have it decline again and the model says it'll eventually balance out

But what actually happens is deadends die off

And birthrates eventually start rising again

Besides, is this not the model of liberal technochracy in which technological improvement makes the tearing down of rules and standards possible? That does not contradict my point, the industrialisation made tearing down of traditional gender roles possible and the birthrate decrease is the result. feminism did not start in the 20th century, it has been progressing for hundreds of years

You'd have to be pretty dense to suggest feminism did play that much of a role in France's early stage of decline

Just look at the behaviour coming out of countries like Bahrain with outright draconic laws on the books and still birthrates etc. are declining and degeneracy rising

That's despite those societies being traditionally polygamous

the highest birthrate is what you get with the equivalent of a puppy mill. we were closer to that 500 years ago than a hundred years ago

Which I think leads to a less bad impact given males are selected to have a lot of children

You're not going to create medieval birthrates without Malthusian conditions

i think looking at polygamous societies complicates things unnecessarily

I was just bringing up even they experience a decline

what are you telling me with your last line?

That the sort of children per woman birthrate is noit attainable through social engineering but poverty

People in prosperous societies do not feel the need to have children to have them be farmhands

Or if you want one child to have 8 so 1 survives

in poverty women have clearer roles than in decadence

Not necessarily

less freedom too

I remember seeing stats on how egalitarian societies like Norway are actually more unequal than third world shitholes

Because they had to help work or whatever, I don't remember exactly

thats about job choice, not family

jordan peterson likes to mention this

Anyway I'd like to bring up how the third Reich made women leave the workplace prewar and it still had a worse birthrate than Weimar

its about which job they choose

Im argueing for the general rule, i dont know what happened in that specific case

I didnt come up with it, there are a number of people making this point

The model of feminism caused birthrates to decline simply doesn't explain the declien of birthrates well enough

I don't like appeals to authority and I brought up a well respected model earlier

A model which isn't just talked about in articles but taught in schools

not that im in favor of it either but saying youre against appeals to authority and being a monarchist is ironic. And I dont really care what they teach in schools nowadays, how can you even make that argument..
If its math then ok, but for anything slightly political obviously dont rely on the education system

You know what an appeal to authority is right? It's blindly trusting an authority figure to tell you the truth, not supporting authority in the political context (Scienceman said x therefore x is true)
You brought up OPeds from Journos who also believe in the wage gap etc. as authoritative so I think a model being taught in school which isn't really political is a bit more trustworthy

It's like saying Algebra is taught in school therefore Algebra is marxist subversion

i said math is fine. But saying your dubious statistic is less dubious than my dubious statistic is a bit silly. And I was just making a joke about your general philosophy
The answer has multiple components. Contraceptives are one part, the natural dead ends are one part, the declining necessity for kids as investment so they support you when youre old, and feminism is one part. When you give women the opportunity to be free of their natural gender role they will take it, when you let them work, they work, and they have less kids. They are an empowered career woman now that dont need no man.
I just do not believe that the biggest reason women have many kids, over the course of history, has been a conscious effort to get taken care of later. I dont believe the majority of women or even people has a time-preference like that. I believe children are the consequence of instinctive behavior and gender roles. And these (the decreasing necessity of help from children and the destruction of traditional gender roles) are the only two proposed causes that seem to correlate with the longterm decrease in birthrates.

It's not just getting taken care of later. It's having extra hands to help on a farm and what certainly was a factor is that back then if you wanted 1 child you needed to have many or it wasn't unlikely your one child would die.

Curiously the lower 2/3rds of society because of the Malthusian conditions at the time got replaced by the upper third twice over