Message from @Mr. Nessel
Discord ID: 679048762748043266
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
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
Which we know because of church records etc.
"We need help- lets make a baby" -I dont believe this was a common sentiment, besides having an heir perhapps when you have wealth
It definitely was a consideration for the men who were peasants and couldn't afford to just hire people. And in a Malthusian society women absolutely required husbands to survive, therefore would listen to him and what he required to bring food to the table
and when you were aiming for a family, you would have accomplished that with the first few children. then why have another 5? general circumstances, not future planning, is my estimation
People knew about infant mortality lol
i mean surviving children
You'd only know after they reach the age of eleven for the most part
So even having living children wasn't a guarantee of anything
well, you think it was a conscious effort to have 8 kids, i think it was a natural conseequence of traditional gender roles and the same thing that led to the 3rd child led to the 8th child, I dont think we can come to a consensus
๐ค
>centuries old trope of a hook noosed jew
ever wondered why though? how can so many people can come to the same conclusion?
Itโs almost like if you get kicked out of hundreds of countries itโs your fault