Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,449,312
There’s a trend where the more wealthy you are, the fewer children you tend to have, up until you earn more than $500,000 per year then the trend reverses, and the wealthier you are, the more children you tend have.
This is probably a function of the wealthy industrialized societies we have created which are hard to survive in unless you are significantly more wealthy than the average person. Most people want kids, but don’t want to accept the burden of having kids.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,449,313
Part of the issue is, in a developed capitalist economy, you need to work in order to earn money. But unless you own a business, you get more money by working harder which gives you less time to take care of your children. So either in a developed country, you’re too poor to afford kids, or you’re spending too much time working to raise them. Unless you make over $500,000 per year, then you don’t have to take care of your children because you can pay somebody else to do it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc septuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,449,314
This also has some pretty profound implications for the future of society. The west became wealthy by colonizing Africa which kept Africa poor. What colonial racists back in the day thought would happen is they could depopulate Africa, settle it with white people, like the Americas through starvation. But that didn’t happen. Instead, Africans starved, and Europeans were rich, but the birth rate in Europe fell, and the birth rate in Africa didn’t.
Hence this graph:
Europe was able to dominate the world in the past because they had 2 to 3 times the population of Africa. In the future, the ratio will be a lot worse but in the opposite direction. Right now everybody’s so arrogant they think this won’t change anything, but it will.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc octuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,449,315
Even if the projections are wrong, Africans have 4 children per woman, Europeans have 1.3 per woman, Europe has 740 million people, and Africa has 1.5 billion people. Replacement rate is just over 2 births per woman. Europe is going to shrink by roughly half each generation and Africa is going to roughly double each generation and they’re starting out with Africa being twice as big. You don’t have to be a genius to figure it out.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc nonuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,449,316
Then that’s not even factoring the differences in age distribution between different countries. There’s a massive young population so even without population growth the work force will grow by hundreds of millions of people while the opposite will happen in the west and in China.