1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo - but I was suggesting that Rekyavik, being a relatively small city, may function more like a rural community than most European capitals.
About half of Iceland's population lives in Reykjavik. I don't think there is a significant difference between Iceland and other European countries in terms of whether people live in urban or rural areas.
Originally posted by TeinosukeWith a population of 120,000? Unlikely. I lived in a 200,000 city once and it was nothing like a rural community (such as the one in which I was born, pop. 3,000) and I see no reason why Reykjavik should be any different.
No - but I was suggesting that Rekyavik, being a relatively small city, may function more like a rural community than most European capitals.
Originally posted by Teinosukeit's ICELAND.
Iceland had a total fertility rate of 2.14 children per woman in 2008. This makes it the only country in Europe with a fertility rate above replacement level.
Iceland is a largely secular country - a situation that many think leads to lower birth rates. It has remarkably liberal social attitudes - a situation that many think leads to lower birth rates. ...[text shortened]... reabouts, what policies could be adopted to encourage the continent follow the Icelandic lead?
what else are you going to do for recreation?
play in the ice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noi_the_Albino_%28film%29
Originally posted by TeinosukeIn poor countries, you have more kids with the idea that the smartest, healthiest one will, a) survive childhood, b) reproduce, c) get a government job or live overseas where he can send home a check each month. Each kid is a roll of the dice, so you keep trying. As for keeping them all fed - hey, go forage.
It's not that it's "considered" high; it's that statistically it is high, compared to other countries. Including the United States, by the way, which is just below replacement rate at 2.05 children per women.
As for why birth rates in most developed countries are so low, this has probably been the subject of another thread, but I wonder if one significa ...[text shortened]... that there's more to the Icelandic example than your "long winter nights" hypothesis!
In developed countries, parents expect ALL their kids to live to reproductive age, so the equation changes dramatically. Having more kids just means each gets less. No one wants lower standards of living for their kids, so they stop.
Look at what the 1 child policy did to China -- a glut of boys because boys were more "valued" -- expected to earn more, etc.
Originally posted by spruce112358You know that most people in poor countries live in urban areas, right? Where are they supposed to "forage"? Seems you have a strange view of what developing countries are like; most of them have living standards comparable to the interbellum or the 50s-60s in developed countries.
In poor countries, you have more kids with the idea that the smartest, healthiest one will, a) survive childhood, b) reproduce, c) get a government job or live overseas where he can send home a check each month. Each kid is a roll of the dice, so you keep trying. As for keeping them all fed - hey, go forage.
In developed countries, parents expect AL ...[text shortened]... did to China -- a glut of boys because boys were more "valued" -- expected to earn more, etc.
I don't get why having more children in rich countries will reduce their standard of living. Perhaps that is true in the U.S., where you won't be able to send all of them to college, but in most rich countries this won't be an issue.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI see poor people foraging in the trash cans all the time!
You know that most people in poor countries live in urban areas, right? Where are they supposed to "forage"? Seems you have a strange view of what developing countries are like; most of them have living standards comparable to the interbellum or the 50s-60s in developed countries.
I don't get why having more children in rich countries will reduce the ...[text shortened]... be able to send all of them to college, but in most rich countries this won't be an issue.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm not advocating being poor or foraging in trash cans. I'm pointing out why poor countries have higher birth rates and saying it makes sense given the facts on the ground.
You know that most people in poor countries live in urban areas, right? Where are they supposed to "forage"? Seems you have a strange view of what developing countries are like; most of them have living standards comparable to the interbellum or the 50s-60s in developed countries.
I don't get why having more children in rich countries will reduce the ...[text shortened]... be able to send all of them to college, but in most rich countries this won't be an issue.
If you have 1 kid, he gets the house. If you have 4 kids, each gets a quarter of the value. What is hard to understand about that?
Originally posted by spruce112358It does seem, though, that poorer people are likely to have more children even within individual countries; it's not just a question of the substantial distinctions between the developed and developing world. Presumably the poor in Europe or the US are not really fearful that their children may actually starve to death, but it seems the demographic/economic paradox still holds.
If you have 1 kid, he gets the house. If you have 4 kids, each gets a quarter of the value. What is hard to understand about that?
I sometimes wonder if this paradox explains the failure of redistribution programmes to end poverty. If, say, ten percent of a given population live in poverty, government intervention might succeed in reducing this to five percent. However, since the children of the poor are likely themselves to be poor, differential birth rates would lead to this percentage gradually creeping up again.
Indeed, since, as spruce112358 points out, the assets of the parents are likely to be divided among the children at death, it could argued that the most effective long-term means of redistribution would be a society in which people reproduced in accordance with their income.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut most developing countries at that level of development also have falling birth rates - for instance, Iran, Tunisia, Thailand, Mongolia, Cuba (relatively but not absolutely poor nations) all have fertility rates below replacement level now. It's the really poor countries, like Niger, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, that have the really high fertility rates.
Seems you have a strange view of what developing countries are like; most of them have living standards comparable to the interbellum or the 50s-60s in developed countries.
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358In developed countries, most people don't leave behind a very large inheritance, if any at all. So I don't think this argument very convincingly explains why in rich countries people have small families.
I'm not advocating being poor or foraging in trash cans. I'm pointing out why poor countries have higher birth rates and saying it makes sense given the facts on the ground.
If you have 1 kid, he gets the house. If you have 4 kids, each gets a quarter of the value. What is hard to understand about that?
So your argument, albeit overly simplistic, does partially explain why people have very large families in very poor countries, but it does not explain why people choose to have small families.
Originally posted by TeinosukeWhat makes you think the redistributive programmes have not succeeded? There are several countries in the world with almost zero poverty.
It does seem, though, that poorer people are likely to have more children even within individual countries; it's not just a question of the substantial distinctions between the developed and developing world. Presumably the poor in Europe or the US are not really fearful that their children may actually starve to death, but it seems the demographic/economi ...[text shortened]... f redistribution would be a society in which people reproduced in accordance with their income.