Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of the women in these poor areas of Africa, etc. don't have a choice. They get raped at early ages, men dominate and do what they want. Religion plays a part as well. That is why aids is so prevalent there, men with aids just rape women without thought so not only do you have a lot of kids but a lot of sick kids. The moms are worn out like cattle. It's a sad cycle that won't stop anytime soon.
Most of the women in these poor areas of Africa, etc. don't have a choice. They get raped at early ages, men dominate and do what they want. Religion plays a part as well. That is why aids is so prevalent there, men with aids just rape women without thought so not only do you have a lot of kids but a lot of sick kids. The moms are worn out like cattle. It's a sad cycle that won't stop anytime soon.
and american has been trying to help afria for decades, and we cant even take care of our own country, we are a mess..
and after having government for the last billion years, we should have this down to a science and everything should be running smoothly, yet every president has to un do another mess from the prevoius pres.
(If there is a thread like this then please direct me towards it.)
It seems that regardless of if it is the poor of the 3rd world nations or the poor of the developed world, the worse-off people end up having more kids, on average, than the stable and well-off people that are actually more capable of supporting their child's needs.
Like, you see programs and informercials of people living in crushing poverty and their kids starving to death and it leaves the mind wondering, why create babies you can't afford and you know will suffer? And please don't give me the talk about how they can't afford condoms, they give out condoms for free in many of these countries. Plus, if they think they can't afford condoms then how the heck could they afford supporting a child for decades? Don't blame lack of access to education, it's common-sense.
Even in America, it seems like the biggest idiots have the most kids and then you see all these professionals, successful and smart people with no kids or only one child. What is going on here?
Why is this the case? (and yes, I know there are many exceptions to the rule so please don't knitpick)
I think if one looks at nature they may find the answer. In nature, it’s really a numbers game with the goal being the continuation of the bloodlines. The ONLY measure of success in nature is the ability to survive and reproduce. Many children in poor countries die of disease and such, like Malaria, cholera and the like. The more children one has this increase the likelihood that one or more will survive to reproduce, as well as, produce a mutation that is resistant to certain disease and thus help the bloodline become stronger. It is in these poor countries that the human species are continuing to evolve via natural selection. In rich countries people are given pills and antibiotics and such that thwart the natural adaptation process.
That said, even though it seems counter intuitive, by nature standards the group that is most threatened is the West. Fertility rates of many women in the west have dropped below the replacement threshold which means that those bloodlines are dying out. In the end, what you see as nonsensical nature sees successful, while what you see as successful is what nature sees as failure.
I've met people who have money who should NOT breed. Take my manager for example. A 37 year old valley girl who makes cruel jokes about other employees and went out of her way to get someone fired because of a medical condition and still brags about it to this day. Arseholes are arseholes, but that idiot just happens to be a mother. I wonder what values (or lack thereof) she is teaching her 2 sons? They will most likely grow up to be adult brats who think it's perfectly ok to bully and make fun of other people.
"Opportunity cost" is the reason economists would say poor people have more children than wealthy people do.
If you are a woman in a developed country, relatively wealthy by world standards, and educated, then the opportunity cost of a having a child is far greater than if you're poor. For women, a child becomes priority one and her career takes the back burner, in most cases, and thank God for them. Just taking maternity leave can derail a woman's career path, even in this day and age. For poor women with part-time or low-paying jobs or no job at all, staying home to raise a child is not much of a financial sacrifice because they're not missing out on the opportunity to earn a big income.
The problem developed, "post-industrial" countries face is low birthrates. When there are more elderly people than there are working-age adults to care for them, the economy suffers. Think of how social security works (and why it won't at the current rate). Japan is a good example and their long life expectancy magnifies the problem. The U.S. is fortunate to have immigrants make up for low birthrates. Some European countries offer incentives for people to have children.
There are also things like the availability of birth-control, contraceptives, etc. and some other arguments are valid, too. I think this does more to explain it, though.
There is, as some posters have pointed out, a huge difference between poor people in developed countries and those in predominantly poor countries. I work with a lot of West Africans, who tend to be middle-class back home (which is why they've scattered all over, for education and opportunity- one co-worker from Uganda has siblings working in Japan and Canada).
One woman told me there is literally no concept of refusing sex "They will beat you." Many men in many cultures are absolutely against birth control as a slap at their masculinity (if they even have the concept). Women have to hide whatever they might have access to- they don't have clean water to wash their hands or diaphragm, or simply don't have the mindset that one can control fertility. A lot of it has to so with the status of women in those societies. The highest birthrates are in the West Bank (double digit births are common) and sub-Saharan Africa.
I don't think people are consciously thinking, one kid or two kids won't live too long, so have more to fill in the gaps. It's not that conscious. (I studied and worked in international public health, but these are anecdotal learnings).
The birth rate in Mexico has dropped dramatically in recent years. Places like Mexico and Brazil feature birth control and family planning issues in the very popular "novellas" (soap operas) and make it part of the common vocabulary. Also, economic improvements overall encourage people to take part in it and support and realization about education and its value lead people to cut their birth rates.
As for poor people in, say, the U.S., I can't understand, unless there is still this cultural undertone that a woman is valued for her childbearing and having kids is her achievement. Certainly any rational assessment of the supposed increase in welfare benefits for each kid would show that it is not cost-effective. (But who says people are rational?)
I think that in third world countries where soooo many children die before they reach adult-hood, having multiple children is an instinctual method of preserving the survival of the race.....just a thought.....kinda like when my chickens are all getting old...the hens become very broody in their quest to hatch new life......probably the reason that the very rich, and successful professionals have less(or none) is because the children might impede on their true love...the quest for more money.....and when you think about it...having children is the ONE thing that no matter HOW poor you are, you can still do it.
I agree 100%. One needs only to look in Northern Ontraio graveyards along the "Road of Broken Dreams" from 100 years ago to see the mortality rate of children before the age of modern medicine. As such, families in those hard times had lots of children to ensure the continuation of their lineage. I would expect to find a similar set of circumstances in third-world countries today.
I agree 100%. One needs only to look in Northern Ontraio graveyards along the "Road of Broken Dreams" from 100 years ago to see the mortality rate of children before the age of modern medicine. As such, families in those hard times had lots of children to ensure the continuation of their lineage. I would expect to find a similar set of circumstances in third-world countries today.
You guys have it exactly right. This isnt only a theory, there are quite a few studies that lead to this conclusion. As it is, high infant mortality rate and low average age expectancy strongly correlate to poverty as well as child birth rate. As someone mentioned, this may be different in more developed coutries, where more government assistance and other similar perks can play a role.
(If there is a thread like this then please direct me towards it.)
It seems that regardless of if it is the poor of the 3rd world nations or the poor of the developed world, the worse-off people end up having more kids, on average, than the stable and well-off people that are actually more capable of supporting their child's needs.
Like, you see programs and informercials of people living in crushing poverty and their kids starving to death and it leaves the mind wondering, why create babies you can't afford and you know will suffer? And please don't give me the talk about how they can't afford condoms, they give out condoms for free in many of these countries. Plus, if they think they can't afford condoms then how the heck could they afford supporting a child for decades? Don't blame lack of access to education, it's common-sense.
Even in America, it seems like the biggest idiots have the most kids and then you see all these professionals, successful and smart people with no kids or only one child. What is going on here?
Why is this the case? (and yes, I know there are many exceptions to the rule so please don't knitpick)
Since when were people responsible about having sex? People don't have sex when it's necessary to have a child. People have sex because it's fun. And so many babies are born as a result of this fun.
Poor people don't have access to a different kind of fun.
but it's also true that they don't have access to protection against child birth, it's expensive
Plus, maybe, there is strenght in numbers. If you have a big family, maybe when all pitch in (like in the old days), you can grow a garden or have a farm or something (to survive)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
