Will it always be normal for developed countries to have a low

It's a natural trend for developed countries. The problem is instead of letting population booms and declines sort themselves out (((people))) use this as an opportunity to import immigrants.

>>129185505
Fertility rates fall in conjunction with education levels. Which is usually correlated with wealth and social programs but not always. People getting smarter leads to people thinking ahead in their lives about how they're going to afford to raise their kids and give them opportunities. And it leads to them knowing how to use birth control, knowing that witches won't steal your penis, etc. All this favors fewer kids.

>>129185505
Hedonism and abstaining from adult responsibilities is what causes lowered birth rates. The cosmopolitan idea of staying childless and having more "free time" is rooted in selfish hedonism that can only capture a people who are near spiritually dead.

>>129185937
(((natural)))

>>129185505
all developed countries have low birth rate.

File: CQta4QyWcAAnU-9.jpg (46KB, 541x380px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 541x380px

>>129185937
This.
While we are all worried about automation taking our jobs, the Nips are gonna be fine.
>maybe if we import a million unskilled 3rd worlders every year that'll do the trick!
I fucking hate this timeline

>>129185937
why is it natural though? how can you prove it? is the underlying cause something in common for all developed countries or could it be possible for a country to develop while maintaining high fertility? that's what OP asked.

>>129185505
No, of course it could be different. Look at the fertility rates from 1800-1950.
>>129185937
Frankly, it is a natural trend. Prosperous societies become degenerate and lose their coherence.
You'd need to actively counteract it, and even then it's incredibly hard. Even the Arabs fell to their degeneracy, might explain why Saudi rulers now adhere to one of the strictest form of Islam instead of being permissive moderates.

>>129185505
Israel has very high birth rates and economically they're on par with western nations.

>>129186626
In my opinion it has to do a lot with social cohesion and the nuclear family. When young people are constantly being bombarded by MSM and society that they have to study and work hard in order to achieve a good income for the future they lose sight of what's really important, raising children and following their true nature.

>>129186626
well part of development is things like decreasing infant mortality. Babies stop dying from things that a week's worth of antibiotics can fix. The fertility rate plummets after people start realizing "Oh man, my baby actually has a good chance of not dying! I don't have to have six of them on the assumption that several will die before growing up!"

normally that kinda shit is considered a good thing, an accomplishment towards which people should strive.

>>129186214
Untrue. Israel has a birthrate of 3 children per woman. This is far above the sustainability line.

>>129187091
Birth rates in rural and suburban areas is higher than in cities. This is independent from income. Wealthy white families as well as poor ones in rural areas have more kids than whites in cities.

Low birth rate is an issue of hedonism, not advancement.

>>129187081
well the type of people you want to be having kids are the diligent, conscientious ones, not the people who just don't give a flying fuck.

And diligent, conscientious people are more likely to study and work hard. Both because that's in their nature and because in this case the MSM's argument is actually true - how is having a good income a bad thing for raising a family? It isn't, it gives you a much better ability to provide for your offspring.

Would you rather have people pumping out kids without preparing ahead of time, and planning for how they're going to raise and support them? Visit the south side of Chicago and see how that works out.

>>129187154

yeah but those are haredim on gibsmedats. Their society wouldn't be stable enough for that it it wasn't for kikes being legitimate leaches.

>>129186626
You realize the term "baby boom" is called that for a reason? It's not a "baby exponential growth". Take away all the globalist filth policies and the boomers will die off and we'll make up for the difference through technology and automation. Japan is doing fine not being stacked three people high everywhere.

>>129187816
To do that you have to teleport back in time and kill Keynes.
Every EU countrys economy is based on constant growth and debt, plus its not like anyone ever will dare to abolish retirement funds and or welfare.

>>129185505
It is individualism must be blamed, not "leftism".

>>129190433
>your kids can be taken away from you if your parenting style doesn't sit well with some social worker or if you are too poor
>historical incentive to have many children in order to not starve to death at old age has been replaced by multitude of social programs
>here in Poland if you send your kids to a private school, it still will be brainwashed, because private schools have to adhere to nationalwide educational programs

I don't think individualism is to blame.

>>129187091
You're saying that when a potential parent knows his or her two kids will survive, they put less life focus on setting aside the amount of time required to have and raise two kids, as opposed to putting great focus on having and raising kids because it may be necessary to have 6+?
That still doesn't explain why liberals have a strong significantly less children than conservatives

File: Demographic-TransitionOWID.png (219KB, 4400x2700px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 4400x2700px

I know this board is frustrated teenagers, but Jesus Christ, this is high school level tier knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

>>129185505
Yes, OP. It does. Just keep the Kangz and muzrats out and we'll be fine.

>>129185505
every country needs low tier hard working people to sustain everyday life, developed countries even more so.
however, citizens of developed countries don't want to take these jobs, they aim higher because they have the means and resources to go that way, climb up the ladder. so, enter immigrants.. and immigrant can't/does not complain much, works hard, is obedient while citizens enjoy working on highly intellectual works/jobs(or no work at all).

>>129193126
Liberals are hedonistic and self centered. Children get in the way of hedonism.

>citizens of developed countries don't want to take these jobs

I call bullshit on that.

>>129193333
That's why Anti-Natalism/Childfree garbage is extremely flawed. They'll always pull the "muh freetime" card to refuse responsibility. Which is what their boomer grandparents did.

>>129193422
even if you want it, you can't take it because an immigrant is cheaper and hassle-free for the employer.
you see, your country expects you to do better as a citizen that enjoys tons of rights and privileges that an immigrant can't, that's how progress is achieved (and your civilization is based on that philosophy, i.e. constant progress)

>>129187816
>>129186351

Japan is not doing fine. Things are going to be shit here pretty soon. While automation might improve the situation eventually, it is going to take several decades for all the pensioners here to die off. In the meantime, a relatively small workforce is going to have a huge tax burden with supporting the older population. Automation may provide a solution eventually, but this country is going to have to survive an economic and social shitstorm before automation actually takes hold. I have my doubts as to whether Japan will make it and remain as prominent a country.

The image of Japan as an economic juggernaut is a facade. The decline is already starting and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

>>129194868
you survived getting nuked twice, a shitty economic crisis is nothing

>>129195231
>American living abroad
My people did the nuking.

Anyway...

Before I get accused of jerking off my homeland, this post as well as my first one is simply parroting the statements of the dozens of Japanese that I've spoken to on this topic.

Post-war prosperity came courtesy of the US, as much as people hate to admit it publicly. Get someone in a private conversation though, and they will illuminate a lot more. There is too much 'face' to lose for the Japanese to broadly concede that they were helped along. Japan was utterly ruined by the war in virtually every possible metric. If Japan wasn't occupied and rebuilt by the Americans, it would have probably just been invaded by the USSR, suffered crippling famine, or just become irrelevant.

Also a demographic crisis is a long lasting affair. Rebuilding two cities is easy compared to getting an entire generation to start breeding again. I wouldn't speak so certainly about a matter in a country that I'm not from, but basically every Japanese adult over age 30 is incredibly concerned about the birth rate and population issue (though not concerned enough to start popping out babies, apparently). It's in the news here constantly.

>>129185505
Natural selection will cause the fertility rate to rise. People with a genetic predisposition to reproducing despite living in the modern environment will pass on their genes, and people who don't reproduce/reproduce little will not pass on their genes. The reason why fertility rates are low now is that we are not in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, and natural selection hasn't had time to adapt to the modern environment. Selection for higher religiosity is one type of selection that is currently occurring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjuBRaLYWnA
https://phys.org/news/2011-01-religiosity-gene-dominate-society.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/16/natural-selection-making-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study

>>129197173
Here's the archive

>https://youtube com/watch?v=ZjuBRaLYWnA
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=ZjuBRaLYWnA
>https://theguardian com/science/2017/jan/16/natural-selection-making-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study
https://archive.is/75KMm

>>129193130
>In the current century, most developed countries have increased fertility. From the point of view of evolutionary biology, wealthier people having fewer children is unexpected, as natural selection would be expected to favor individuals who are willing and able to convert plentiful resources into plentiful fertile descendants. This may be the result of a departure from the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.[20][21] Thus, from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, the modern environment is exerting evolutionary pressure for higher fertility.[5]

>>129186626

It's mainly because advances in medical technology and general standard of living dis-incentivize people to have a high number of children, partly because they have more faith that they will live longer

The population boom results from the lag between the time that deaths drop and birth rate drops

This entire argument in modern times has gone full retart. A lowering fertility rate is a positive in a world where so much is being automated. The problem is the left will spout off that factory jobs won't come back bc of robots yet say we need more immigrants to keep the economy a float. Those two things are contradictory. What were actually doing is decreasing the value of workers by increasing competition for jobs which keeps pay down.

A historical example of this would be women entering the work force. Before this happened a family could live a upper middle class life style with only the husband working. Now it takes both parents working to achieve this. By doubling the work force official spending power was cut in half

>>129196456

Are younger women concerned about the issue of low births too, or have they just come to realize that half of young men are only interested in 2D drawings? Do they even care?

>>129198790
20 something women will lament the epidemic of worthless video game addicted guys, but hearing people say they never want children is pretty common. There is an awful lot of
>I hate kids XD
voiced by that demographic. They're still subject to their biology though. When they're nearing 30 and that clock is ticking they start feeling the desire. No woman with a healthy endocrine system can ignore this. At most they can only redirect the feeling and nurture something else like a pet, or a plant. People become really bitter and desperately unhappy when that window passes by.

This trend isn't specific to western culture, its not unique in Japan. It plays out the exact same way in the US, Germany, or Japan. Japan is just further along than we are.

Actually in fertility in Eastern European countries has risen after the fall of fertility in the 90's

File: quote-in-1965-the-people-of-britain-may-have-been-poorer-smaller-shabbier-dirtier-colder-narrower-peter-hitchens-237724.jpg (78KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 850x400px

>>129194868
>Japan gets a couple of rough decades
>Europeans get blown up and run over while importing migrants that don't work for a welfare-workforce ponzi scheme that will either end in genocide or kicking the can down the road
Such a difficult choice, really makes me think.

My grandparents (the ones who got shipped off to fight yours) were dirt poor for most of their lives. They worked in steel mills and had 10 people living under the same roof. They we're MUCH happier & stronger than we are today.

Being with your own people and having self-determination is better than all of the money in the world. Learn from our mistakes Nippon, we're passing the torch unto you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcQr2hnf1aU

File: artificial_womb.jpg (71KB, 854x327px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 854x327px

>>129185505
Artificial wombs will increase the fertility rate

>>129199966
>immigrants come to Europe make bunch of kids
>later fertility goes down in shitskin population
>they get old and that creates another boomer demographic that needs gibs me dat so they could shit in their diapers at elderly care home
Epic solution to our problem

Because the chances of survival rise with the development of a nation. Also, cost of living increases, which means cost of raising children increases.

Poor nations have to reproduce more because they think the offspring will die, so they want to increase the chances of their lineage continuing -- not that it should.

>>129200184
Maybe. Such a thing would potentially lead to more single parent families. It'd let infertile women have babies, something we probably shouldn't do.
In general however liberal city dwelling couples aren't choosing a childless life because of the burden of pregnancy. They're abstaining because they want to keep being immature degenerates.
You think rural families are going to have test tube babies when theres a wife with a perfectly good womb?

>>129185505
A large correlation with family size and birth rate has to do with the education of women in a country. I believe it is due to the idea that it raises female social status and most arent going to go down in the hierarchy to mate, especially since education of women seems to happen in countries that respect women's rights etc etc

>>129198790
Younger people, men and women, have a token recognition of the issue, but don't particularly care.

File: womensocialist.jpg (265KB, 1350x801px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1350x801px

>>129200534
It would also mean that we would be less dependent on women for the White Race to survive. Women are susceptible to brainwashing, which means that there are few redpilled women to go around. It would also mean that people like us, i.e. high technical/systemic intelligence, low social intelligence types, would have an easier time reproducing. Reprogenetics could also solve problems with dysgenics.

>>129185505
It's feminism. Feminism made it a gigantic financial and legal risk for men to marry and/or reproduce. Feminism also made marrying / reproducing a very poor investment for men.

What happens when you make something a huge risk with a gigantic cost and very little reward? You get less of it.

File: 1483827021768-1.jpg (146KB, 1000x529px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1000x529px

>>129200335
Exactly. It's not a solution, it's a stalling mechanism.

Most of your leaders don't even have kids, and the ones that do will make sure they're well-connected and well-protected. They don't give a damn what happens to your countries in 40 years.
>reminder that this is only the BEST case scenario, where enough migrants actually work/assimilate to keep the machine running (the U.S. model)
>if they DON'T work/assimilate, you'll still get the Economic crash....plus you'll have a hostile military-aged force embedded in your country
Bad times are ahead my friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRFxoHqmvTo