Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
I
In developed nations, the mitigating factor against having lots of kids is two-fold. The first issue is economics. Kids are expensive. The question is usually not how many you want, but how many you can afford. The second issue is that the level of development offers options. The career path of a woman is not limited to wife and mother. Some women choose not to have kids at all. Others try to balance kids and a career, and more children make that more difficult.
...Dennis
|
That's my point, we choose the path for our nation based on the path we desire for ourselves. Looking historically at the world. Those poor nations with large families tend to last in stasis for thousands of years, virtually unchanged and quite often relatively happy with their lives and family. I am not talking about desperately poor people here, but those whom the west might consider poor nonetheless. Those who are in an unhappy / horrible circumstance are quite often there not because of their level of wealth rather because of outside forces controlling or even enslaving them. Regardless of their circumstance though, societies that focus on family first last for millenia even though we may see them as poor.
Successful, wealthy individualistically focused societies on the other hand always vanish after only a few centuries. Their empires dissolve for lack of financial support/new military recruits/adequate agriculture and they revert back to the small countries whence they emerged only a few hundred years earlier. Look at any empire of the past the cycle is apparent.
This, by the way, is not a judgement statement. It is a historical statement.