• brrt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    To point 1. of your list, people usually have more children in worse conditions because worse conditions mean higher mortality.

    • stopdropandprole@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      that’s an important (yet debatable) prediction. historically, in subsistence based economies where more farmhands=more food I think that’s been true. and holds true up to the point where costs of living don’t exceed net household wages (picture Dickens era chimney sweep kids laboring for a pittance).

      what’s interesting is that it’s not true AT ALL for any other species in nature, only humans in the post ~1800s era have developed a seeming unlimited capability to secure more food for their young. wild deer populations naturally reduce themselves when food is scarce, but humans found a cheat code to growing forever.

      hard to say. but it’s worth mentioning that although the doubling time for population has been contracting since 1800, it now appears to have flattened and is reversing direction.

      maybe more accurate to compare say, fewer people choosing to have children vs fewer kids surviving to adulthood and what conditions contribute more to each