[untitled]
6 comments
Birth rates decline with female education, from long before leds were invented.
It's hard having kids but cultures like Japanese and Korean make it so hard on women - expected to care for both sets of aging parents and grandparents as well, bullied by the husband's mother and lumbered with childcare and cooking, I don't think we need to trouble this guy for his 'theories' to see why as soon as they have a choice, they nope out.
It's hard having kids but cultures like Japanese and Korean make it so hard on women - expected to care for both sets of aging parents and grandparents as well, bullied by the husband's mother and lumbered with childcare and cooking, I don't think we need to trouble this guy for his 'theories' to see why as soon as they have a choice, they nope out.
I think theories are worth considering and discussing.
Often the cause of a phenomenon has multiple causes but we humans and especially our media like to imagine every single event has a single cause, it’s a strong bias.
In other words, it’s entirely possible that culture, education and LED lights all have significant effects on birth rates
Often the cause of a phenomenon has multiple causes but we humans and especially our media like to imagine every single event has a single cause, it’s a strong bias.
In other words, it’s entirely possible that culture, education and LED lights all have significant effects on birth rates
There could even be hidden factors pushing things in the opposite direction but they go unnoticed because their magnitude is smaller than the factors pushing in the observed direction. In some cases, these hidden factors might not even be hidden but mistaken for a contributing factor due to their correlation with the collective direction.
Perhaps, or I should say probably.
But in things as complex as this, multiple factors could be at play, including what this guy is theorizing.
But in things as complex as this, multiple factors could be at play, including what this guy is theorizing.
Something about correlation and causation comes to my mind. When you start an article listing all the known causes and they all relate to a high income (people in cities have more money, people in richer countries have more money, people with better education have more money, people with electricity have more money), why would you just dismiss this relation and claim that it's something else that seems to correlate nicely with high income as well (cities have more lights, richer countries have more lights, people with better education have more lights, people with electricity have more lights)? Surely a proof that high income is not the root cause is needed here.
Also, I don't really see the supposed collapse of birth rates after 2015, at least it doesn't seem half as drastic as those in the 70s (which can be explained by people having more money) or the ones caused by war.
Also, I don't really see the supposed collapse of birth rates after 2015, at least it doesn't seem half as drastic as those in the 70s (which can be explained by people having more money) or the ones caused by war.
The same source shows that Germany and England started their demographic transition end of the 19th century despite being more urbanised.
The effect should be bigger in northern countries than in the southern countries but Norway, Denmark and Sweden started also their transition at the end of the century, and today they have a greater fertility rate than Spain, Italy or Greece