Discussion » Questions » Human Behavior » Are cultures/nations/religions that have more births really stronger than the west where 1.98 or 2 is the norm? Perhaps another myth?
Benedict Arnold

Are cultures/nations/religions that have more births really stronger than the west where 1.98 or 2 is the norm? Perhaps another myth?

Someone here, (naming no names!) said that Muslims and muslim countries were stronger than us, (by this I mean UK/US) because your/our birthrate is dropping.. They tried to link that to feminism.. this question isn't about feminism, that's a whole new debate.. But this got me thinking... I'd always assumed that yes, other cultures DO have more children than us and I assumed the idea that women were little more than breeding factories churning out kid after kid in countries like India...

Apparently it isn't quite like that....and although for sure the world's population is increasing, (again another whole debate on it's own) the countries we traditionally thought of as having very high birthrates have actually seen a massive decrease in the number of children born.. according to a book I am reading called unnatural selection...I couldn't believe this.. it was against everything i had thought.. but a looksee on the web seems to confirm that countries where we traditionally thought people had loads of kids now do not and haven't for some time.. a few decades at least... 

The reason apparently is that people are choosing to have fewer children, and this is linked to the increasing understanding that fewer children mean greater wealth/better standard of living... see perhaps it's really not that more children make you richer or more powerful.. certainly you have to feed them, clothe them, educate them, in some countries such as India you have to pay dowries for daughters... I'd always thought that here in the west we chose to have less children because we don't have to and we know that more will survive due to better medical intervention, so I guess there's no real reason that wouldn't equally apply to other countries, developing countries where increasingly they are moving away from labour intensive farming etc and more industrialised, automated work to support their families..

Unfortunately however, it seems that many of these developing countries such as India, Thailand, China etc are using abortion as a means of controlling their birthrates..and worse are turning to sex selection - in other words aborting female fetuses in favour of male.. sex selection... This is producing a skewed population whereby up to 170 males are born for every 100 females.. (naturally it should be 105 males for 100 females.) 

This question isn't about sex selection, or even about the danger of so many abortions, often performed at 20+weeks.. it's about whether it really is the case that muslims and other cultures that supposedly have more live birth children than the west...  It seems that actually the east, as in Asia and China really aren't having so many children after all and apparently even African countries are slowing down in the number of births..

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#region

Interestingly too our fears of all being taken over by the Islamic religion seem unfounded when it comes to population as there seem to be a greater number of christians than Muslims.

Posted - December 11, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 3934
    The people who promulgate such theories start with the conclusion "TEH EBIL MUSLIMS IS EBIL! BE AFRAID!" then go looking for reasons to justify their bigoted fears.

    Trying to deter such people with rational arguments and empirical facts is usually a futile exercise.
      December 11, 2016 10:15 AM MST
    1

  • LOL i know OldSchool.. but I am by nature an educator - i like to learn so i assume everyone else does and that if i cannot help them learn this is somehow my fault - that i didnt try hard enough or say it in a way they could understand... I should just accept that most of those I have difficulty with because they say illogical things... are.... just... illogical and don't want to learn. but still i have this hopeless optimism... and keep wanting to try... If i can help one poor foolish idiot I will have done a good thing :)
      December 11, 2016 11:32 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @DTD -- You and me both, sister! Preach it!

    Even if you don't help educate others who are too ideologically-blindered to see what the empirical data shows, I think the exercise can be useful because you get to explore and test your own understanding. Often, that leads to better ways of understanding the subject and explaining it to others in the future.

      December 11, 2016 11:42 AM MST
    1

  • 44622
    Interesting...I guess those nations where women have ten children are going overthrow us at any moment....wait, they are too busy blowing up the children. SO LET'S MAKE SOME MORE.
      December 11, 2016 10:51 AM MST
    1

  • Ahem.. the point was that they are statistically NOT having live births.. they are aborting many pregnancies in the second trimester if they are females... so in terms of births they are having a similar number to us..
      December 11, 2016 11:29 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    I recently read an essay which predicted (based on birthrate trends) that the Earth will start depopluating (not in our lifetimes, probably starting in 75-100 years). The human population will peak around 10 billion, then start going DOWN.

    (Note: the above assumes no major wars/natural disasters/etc.)

    That will really throw humanity for a loop. So much of our economic and social thinking is based upon the hidden assumption there will be more people tomorrow then there are today. What will happen to major economic sectors (housing, food, energy production, etc.) when it's inevitable demand for those products will decrease?
      December 11, 2016 11:37 AM MST
    0

  • That will throw SS for a loop and be a disaster for it.   Considering it's whole theory is based on population always getting bigger.
      December 11, 2016 12:46 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @Glis -- Yep. But I think it's more fundamental than that. Nearly every business is predicated on the idea that it will sell more stuff this year than it did last year. In a world of shrinking population, demand for stuff WILL go down. How will our thinking adapt?
      December 11, 2016 1:15 PM MST
    1

  • 53509
    In order to answer intelligently, the definition of "strength" (as it relates to the particular context of this discussion) would first have to be determined.

    There are so many types and aspects of a culture's strength, a nation's strength, a religion's strength, etc, and not each type or aspect is all-encompassing, that this issue can't be decided by a simple yes or no.
    ~
      December 11, 2016 12:56 PM MST
    0

  • So birth rates are exponentially being nullified? or am I missing something.
      December 11, 2016 1:03 PM MST
    0

  • 1440
    good subject.... i dunno... i just know a lot of countries are now 'old countries"....



    like America land was probably a blessing, because all others lands were already fulfilled and populated... and they gained a huge virgin lands to allow more humans to live....




    its crazy in canada we have a huuuuge land and huugge economic opportunity... and we,re only like 35 millions people....


    and theres countries who are really small annd goes almost a billion.... its crazy
      December 11, 2016 1:37 PM MST
    0

  • 1233
    Firstly the west does not achieve a birth rate of 2. The U.K. and the U.S. is 1.9 but the E.U. is at 1.6, with some countries like Germany as low as 1.4.

    In the past high child mortality rates required high birth rates. Obviously for any society to have a stable population, each woman must on average produce 2 children that survive to reproduce. Improved child mortality means that high birth rates are no longer necessary. Virtually 100% of children in the 1st world survive to reproductive age, so we only need a birth rate of 2 to be sustainable. 

    Does it not stand to reason that any society with a birth rate of less than 2 will eventually cease to exist? Does it not also stand to reason that as its population dwindled it would have less economic and military strength?

    I'm not saying the number needs to be high. I'm saying it needs to be at least 2. I'm not saying this the only factor in what makes a society strong. Though it is highly significant.

    "The reason apparently is that people are choosing to have fewer children, and this is linked to the increasing understanding that fewer children mean greater wealth/better standard of living... see perhaps it's really not that more children make you richer or more powerful.."

    You are conflating the individual and society. We're not talking about individual living standards. We are talking about the wealth of society COLLECTIVELY. The more people the more collective strength.

    Old people are supported by young people. The system is dependent on enough young people paying into the system and not too many old people taking out of the system. Lower birth rates lead to an older population that is less productive.

    Yes, if everyone else has lot of kids and you personally decide to have only 1 kid or none you personally will be wealthier. Though if everyone does that society collapses. 

    We are not talking about the PRESENT. We are talking about what WILL BE IN THE FUTURE. Your statement is like saying "People who just spend on their credit cards enjoy a higher standard of living than people who save." Of course they do NOW.... Though obviously that does not sow the seeds of a high standard of living in the FUTURE! You are so short sighted you wrote your entire post in the present tense....
    This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 11, 2016 4:25 PM MST
      December 11, 2016 2:50 PM MST
    0

  • Go on, tell us a joke. You know you want to.

      December 11, 2016 2:57 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    So many bogus assumptions woven into a single paranoid rant...;-D...
      December 11, 2016 3:02 PM MST
    0

  • 5354
    It appears that a good bit of the 'our low birthrate' is linked to pollution making sperm cells less fertile.
      December 11, 2016 6:55 PM MST
    0