Talk:Sub-replacement fertility

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bushlacs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Various comments

I suggest linking not to State such as Mongolia but at demographics of states Demographics of Mongolia

Hope you don't mind...I added some countries to the sub- replacement list and fixed some grammar errors/typos. Countries I added include Turkey, Algeria (below replacement), Laos, and the Philippines(these 2 are above replacement). Maybe I'll add more later. --JPan 20:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest the American exception should be better explained: The replacement population factor is not affected due to religious forces as much as immigration from Latin America and South East Asia; this can be better explained by the fact that Hispanic population in the U.S. has been growing as much as 300% in some regions. However that could be part of the Illegal immigration topic.

Yea, I'm not convinced on the "American exception". Growth from immigration does not count as natural growth from high fertility. Someone created an "American exception" in Demographic-economic paradox too. Jigen III 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Philippines and Laos aren't east asian countries according to the Wikipedia definition of East Asia.

There's a phenomenon I'm thinking of and I know there must be a technical name for it, but I don't know what it is. The idea is that in undeveloped agricultural cultures it's profitable to have children (they can do useful work at a pretty young age) but in modern technical countries (with child labor laws) having children isn't so much an investment but a luxury item, meaning people don't make money off of having children (and it's even thought of as immoral to think of having children in connection with profit). Anyway, whatever the name for this is, shouldn't it be mentioned on the page somewhere? -Swelke

Proletariat - name of the people you described. I don't know a name for the phenomenon. Jigen III 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

according to the cia factbook linked to in this articale america only a feretility rate of 2.08 slightly below average

I hope it's all right that I removed Laos and Philippines from the part on fertility rates in East Asia. They're not considered part of East Asia by the wikipedia article on the subject. What's more, if you want to include them (perhaps as south-east Asia) it would make sense to include other countries as well, such as cambodia, which is also above replacement rate. This would of course render the statement that "all" of east asia is below the replacement rate rather meaningless, since there would be more exception countries than countries that confirm the statement.

According to my source, the Time Complete History of the World (Richard Overy, 2004) cities in the 19th century actually had *higher* fertility rates than the countryside, where people "married younger and had more children". I changed the article accordingly. If anyone has more reliable references to indicate that cities have always had lower birthrates, feel free to revert.

Israel is western? Note "The Israeli exception": The United States is not the only western nation with a high fertility rate. Israel has a fertility rate of 2.41 children per woman (the highest in the developed world). Wonderbreadwop 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

for the image

Image:Fertility rate world map.PNG

I didn't find the <1.00 legend,hoping someone adding the fertility under 1.00,it seems that Hong Kong and Singapour are below 1.00.--Ksyrie 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where source(s) were used to make the fertility rate world map?Gary 01:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Contraception is not new

I deleted the following sentences:

Others argue that the ideological impact of feminism has been exaggerated. With the availability of female contraception, for the first time in human history women have been able to choose how many children to have; that they choose to have only one or two children is simply a rational "consumer choice" given the expenditure of time and money that child-raising implies.

for the following reasons:

• Others argue that the ideological impact of feminism has been exaggerated. Since the section is already presenting several competing theories on equal footing, there is no need to emphasize that the feminism one is disputed. They are all in dispute, and I would guess that others (e.g. Malthusian) are more disputed. Please cite a source if you believe otherwise.
• ...for the first time in human history women have been able to choose how many children to have... Incorrect. Contraception is not new, see Birth control#History. It is more accessible and more accepted, but these points have already been made.
• ...simply a rational "consumer choice"... this is just a restatement of the economic argument which was already in the article, and it is not a good metaphor.

--Yannick 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

that was my sentence. I have no objection to the deletion but I would like to have some reference to the idea of "consumerism". I.e., many women choose to have fewer children simply because they PREFER (as individuals) to spend their time/money on other things. Not that they have anything against motherhood, its just a lower priority for them than saving for a beach holiday or eating out or whatever. To give you a totally non-academic example, I'm looking for some form of words to convey the words of a middle-aged Spanish housewife, who, surveying the traffic chaos in her local High Street, turned to me and said "We used to have children, now we have cars!". She said that regretfully, but there was an essence of truth in what she said - for many of her younger compatriots, in this consumer age, having a child is way down the shopping list! They DO want to have a child, but not until after they have got the car, the sound system, the tumble-drier, the trip to Australia, etc, etc!.

This is a new factor (historically) which has IMO more to do with our advert-led consumer society and less to do with any feminist ideology. Jameswilson 22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that societies are increasingly materialistic, and parents are placing a higher priority on luxury goods than on having kids. If you believe that is a verifiable statement, go ahead and put it in. If someone then challenges it, you will have to cite a source in order to keep the statement in place. It sounds like a simple enough statement that you should be able to find something at your local public library.--Yannick 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes while reading

I found four mistakes while reading this article. All of them dealing with spelling and coherent writing. There should be more emphasis on writing to effectively convey the information, not just writing it for the sake of doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.38.122 (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Exception

I placed disputed and unreferenced tags on this section; some of it seems inaccurate (Australia's recent demographic history does not seem to fit the US model, neither do the Nordic countries) and the interpretation placed upon US regional variations in the birth rate looks like WP:OR.Pondle (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Where can a source for fertility rates by states (in the U.S.) be found? The article seems to imply the existence of such a source. I have seen some maps showing rough ranges, however nothing too precise. The census might have it so I will check that.

I would like to second that this section seems rather absurd and the stereotyped pseudo-demographic claims seem irrelevant in an article simply explaining sub-replacement fertility. Neuromusic (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The Economist, Vol 393, Number 8655, had a headline article on this subject. See Economist.com/fertilitysources for a full of of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.158.69.134 (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Relation between ageing population and economic burden

There is some controversy about the economic impact of an ageing population. At first glance it would appear that countries with large ageing populations could be overwhelmed by increased pension and healthcare payments.

However this may be offset by the economic benefits of smaller families. In a report to the British government in 2006 economist and chair of the UK Pensions Commission, Sir Adair Turner said that "It is also important to understand that this negative effect of low fertility is offset by some powerful economic benefits of smaller families and low population growth. Smaller families mean less expenditure on rearing children and on education:" he continues "smaller families mean that people on average inherit more housing capital"

According to OptimumPopulation there is also the economic costs of population growth. Increased expenditure on roads, housing, sewage and other infrastructure to accommodate the rising population. In the UK 43% of young people go into higher education and are dependents well into their 20s.

British economist Phil Mullan in The imaginary time bomb believes no-one has come up with a compelling case why aging would be so burdensome. The anxiety about aging is misplaced.

Argentina is far from a developed nation. Many of it's citizens migrate to MEXICO, another 3rd world country. A predomaninantly white population a developed nation does not make. I'm editing accordingly

Wikid-savage (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Developed nations without SRF

It mentions the US, Israel, France, Australia and NZ, but what about the following countries (that could be interresting case studies):

• Iceland: has never had SRF yet has one of the highest standard of livings in the world?
• Ireland
• UK (Fertility rate the exact same as France in 2010 (2.00)
• or possibly Sweden in the 60s/70s where the fertility rate was strangely above 2, while the rest of western europe fell to 1.5-1.8? Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Iceland did have (slight) SRF e.g. in 1985/86: Demographics_of_Iceland#Summary_of_vital_statistics_since_1900_.5B2.5D

And Ireland has SRF according to Demographics_of_Ireland, and is probably the only country in the world whose population peaked in the 19th century. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Related remark: According to the UN definition of a developed country,

"In common practice, Japan in Asia, Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed" regions or areas. "

and WP's national demographics articles, there is apparently no developed country that has never experienced SRF (since Israel is not considered developed in that definition). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Update for Iceland

According to recent statistics, Iceland's fertility rate is closer 2.2, which means it should be color coded green. Source (scroll down to fertility section): http://eng.velferdarraduneyti.is/departments/gender-equality/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurkhardo (talk • contribs) 16:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

France

During the 19th century France's population was growing much more slowly than surrounding countries. TMBTC (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Education and % of new mothers

Interesting data to possibly add:

"Although less educated women are a shrinking share of all new mothers, less educated women still have a higher average number of births throughout their lifetime than more educated women. By the end of their childbearing years, women without a high school diploma have on average 2.5 children, and women with a bachelor’s degree have about 1.7. This gap has closed only slightly over the past 25 years" [1]

Although I did not read the whole report, I wonder if they considered the relative percentages of women getting an education over time, which would give a much simpler explanation of causation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 08:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Misattributed quote

The Emperor Tiberius, not Julius Caesar, lectured the Roman knights on not having enough children: http://lexundria.com/dio/56/cy --125.253.96.70 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

HIV section

Does anyone have a strong opinion on the removal of this section or, at least, significantly trimming it? Most of the claims go without citation and sound more like opinion than fact. Edits were made by 86.25.172.21 around Oct 2014, for those curious about what I'm referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesb2147 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Upon reviewing the edit again and reflecting on it, I'm going to remove significant sections now. Claims, for example, that HIV "has ... caused in some countries sub-replacement fertility rates" deserve a citation. If someone finds a citation, please feel free to restore the content and add the citation.Jamesb2147 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Overcrowding

The overcrowding hypothesis is not original research as mentioned in this NIMH published article

http://tomax7.com/HeyGod/misc/MousePopulationStudy.PDF

Also the primary sources of antiquity support a sub-replacement fertility in those civilizations that were highly urbanized.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D37%3Achapter%3D9

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JdGQNIxBMh0C&redir_esc=y

According to the studies John B Calhoun and using the theory of the Behavioral Sink as humanity spends more time living in high density overcrowded conditions the fertility rate should decrease over a generational period of time. The study suggests that humans who have evolved in low-density conditions are socially unprepared for life in high-density conditions. The violation of the Dunbar number seems to have consequences that may decrease the fertility of a group over time. Also many Ancient civilizations who have lived under high-density conditions such as the highly urbanized Ancient Greeks and Ancient Romans seemed to have suffered rapid depopulation at the end of their existence which can be found in the archaeological evidence of Late Antiquity. Also the Greek Polybius describes the dearth of children that he observed in Ancient Greece
- "Polybius, Histories, book 37, Depopulation of Greece". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved 2016-02-16. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 11 (help)
And Cassius Dio a historian who lived in Ancient Rome documented the low birth rates that were affecting the Roman nobility.
- Dio, Cassius (2004-06-01). Dio's Rome. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 9781419116117.
Low-density nations who lived close to these civilizations eventually took over their territory as is usually described by the Barbarian invasions. Also between 1206 and 1150 BC, the cultural collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, the Hittite Empire in Anatolia and Syria,^[1] and the New Kingdom of Egypt called the Bronze Age Collapse can be attributed to sub replacement fertility rates due to overcrowding in those civilizations. The fairly rapid depopulation and abandonment of most cities in those civilizations can be attributed to low fertility rates. Further back the urban Minoan and Sumerian civilizations were also depopulated, and their territory was later taken over by people who lived under low density conditions that lived nearby.

Demographic-economic paradox also supports this theory as the richer nations are highly urbanized.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promet14 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 

Promet14 (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Promet14 (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I can accept the mention of these observances in the section Sub-replacement_fertility#Historical_effects, but I see no evidence here that overcrowding in itself is a cause of sub-replacement fertility. The demographic-economic paradox concerns income and fertility, which also is a confounder to relate overcrowding with fertility. We have contradictory examples, with Nigeria having both a high population density and a high total fertility rate. Therefore, we need more sources that explicitly mention overcrowding as a separate parameter if we are to mention it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Although urbanization and overcrowding are very similar there are many sources which define an inverse relationship between urbanization and fertility rates. That being said John B. Calhoun's research should be mentioned because it involved the artificial urbanization or overcrowding of animals. The demographic-economic paradox arises because high income countries are usually highly urbanized countries, while poorer countries are more rural. Also the urbanization rate of Nigeria is only 50%. And the population has been urbanized quite recently so rural ideals still persist.

http://www.indexmundi.com/nigeria/urbanization.html http://user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/Vaupel-PDR-15-1989-3.pdf https://alfinnextlevel.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/urbanization-chart.gif http://explainingprogress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UN-Estimates-and-Forecasts-Total-fertility-by-major-regions-1950-2100-children-per-woman-UN.png

There is a strong inverse correlation between fertilty rate from 1950-2015 and urbanization rates 1950-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promet14 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Promet14 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a separate section for the urbanization effect: Sub-replacement_fertility#Urbanization. Animal research would more appropriately fit at Fecundity. With these existing subjects given, I see little material to support the addition of a separate "Overcrowding" section. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok yes I agree that overcrowding and urbanization are very similar subjects

Promet14 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Feminism is the elephant in the room

I'm rather surprised that not once in the entire article are the obvious effects of feminism on birthrates mentioned, nor does the word itself even make an appearance. I think too highly of Wikipedia to accuse anyone of specifically censoring mention of feminism, so let's talk about it. We could condense a few of these sections right into a feminism subheading and I think it would improve the article.

• Women, no longer needing to find a man and depend on him for her well-being and financial security as in ages past, end up doing things other than getting married and having children for a long time. For some, they might be building up their careers well into their 30's, past the prime fertility age.

• Marriage itself has been eroded by feminism (at least in the United States) to the point where it is no longer a safe strategy for men. No-fault divorces, unenforceable nuptial agreements, disproportionately losing custody battles, signing away half of assets in most marriages among other things. Marriage is a bad idea for men in the 21st century, and women need men to raise large, stable families (and vice versa).

• Thanks to the changes wrought by feminism, women are expected to do more than stay home and raise children (and indeed, face criticism from feminists if they want to be stay-at-home mothers). A woman who has to divide her attentions between breadwinning and childrearing will in all likelihood have a smaller family.

There are other effects of feminism that I haven't mentioned, but this is just a starting point for what I hope will be a discussion and eventually an addition to or condensation of the article. Thoughts? 71.231.183.97 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Update the map

The map, which is based on data from CIA World Factbook, needs to be updated with newest data from 2016. [2]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sub-replacement fertility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117215622/http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1950-1955%2C1955-1960%2C1960-1965%2C1965-1970%2C1970-1975%2C1975-1980%2C1980-1985%2C1985-1990%2C1990-1995%2C1995-2000%2C2000-2005%2C2045-2050&variable_ID=369&theme=4&cID=&ccID=0%2C1%2C6%2C2%2C3%2C5%2C8%2C7%2C4 to http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=1950-1955,1955-1960,1960-1965,1965-1970,1970-1975,1975-1980,1980-1985,1985-1990,1990-1995,1995-2000,2000-2005,2045-2050&variable_ID=369&theme=4&cID=&ccID=0,1,6,2,3,5,8,7,4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414023246/http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_96.pdf to http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_96.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

forecast updates?

with covid and worsening demographies of multiple countries, is there a more updated forcast for population growth than one from 2012? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitional Error

The initial definition of this article’s subject is incorrect because it excludes areas that should meet the requirements but have excessive immigration, which maintains population despite lowest-low fertility. 2600:8803:C40B:F900:E094:2BD0:D6E:F1AE (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? The initial definition pertains only to fertility. In fact, the lead mentions a number of countries that have growing populations despite sub-replacement fertility. "Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy." Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)