Talk:Sub-replacement fertility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)