Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France's baby bust

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 263 posts

Re: France's baby bust

#11

Post by rzk »

franky47 wrote: post #2

> In 1700, almost 1 in 25 inhabitants on Earth, and one in five in Europe, was French. Today, less than a percent of humanity is French. Why did France’s population decline in relative terms so dramatically, and did it really mark the decline of France? It seems far-fetched to use global population as a relative indicator of France's "decline", where the global population exploded after the industrial revolution.

If the explosion of the global population is driven by the industruial revolution, then it would've impacted France's population the same way. So it makes sense to compare this way.

Re: France's baby bust

#12

Post by 4gotunameagain »

woodruffw wrote: post #8
4gotunameagain wrote: post #4

So, the demographic transition took place exceptionally early in France, but why? In my research, I argue that the diminished sway of the Catholic Church, nearly 30 years before the French Revolution, was the key driver of the fertility decline. It more and more seems like "traditional", conservative societies are more successful on aggregate. If they are beneficial to the individuals comprising them, this is a matte…

This is contradicted by all available evidence: “traditional” societies succeed when they industrialize and liberalize. France was 20% of Europe’s population in 1700, but there is no meaningful sense in which the average French subject was “succeeding” in 1700.

The comparison of the article is pretty clear. Secularism and liberalisation led to plummeting birth rates. This is to what I am referring.

Re: France's baby bust

#13

Post by necovek »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #4

So, the demographic transition took place exceptionally early in France, but why? In my research, I argue that the diminished sway of the Catholic Church, nearly 30 years before the French Revolution, was the key driver of the fertility decline. It more and more seems like "traditional", conservative societies are more successful on aggregate. If they are beneficial to the individuals comprising them, this is a matte…

From my equally unfounded gut feel, it's actually balanced societies that are the most successful.

When that balance strongly tilts one way, tension occurs and requires rebalancing for that society to continue to prosper. On society lifetime scale, this usually takes decades which is annoying to a single generation, but a speck in the scheme of things.

Re: France's baby bust

#14

Post by rippercushions »

eastbound wrote: post #9
franky47 wrote: post #2

> In 1700, almost 1 in 25 inhabitants on Earth, and one in five in Europe, was French. Today, less than a percent of humanity is French. Why did France’s population decline in relative terms so dramatically, and did it really mark the decline of France? It seems far-fetched to use global population as a relative indicator of France's "decline", where the global population exploded after the industrial revolution.

Also, why would we want to overpopulate? The whole premise is wrong. We need to weigh less on the environment, and currently farmers are receding in France, and it’s the first profession for suicide; All tells us that the next generation will be full-urban, which is an extremely bad thing. Of course, empires with more dense populations have more ability to dominate others, at least thanks to the variety of skills and…

If you want to weigh less on the environment, you want to go urban: it's far more efficient to live in shared housing (apartments), commute by public transport, etc.

Re: France's baby bust

#15

Post by pfdietz »

langsoul-com wrote: post #6

The book, "shall the religious inherit the world" is relevant. I'd be interested what happens when general birthrate declines and a religious group, that massively encourages tons of children, take larger voting percentages.

The assumption that religion is something that people stick with is dubious, though. In the absence of coercion people will tend to abandon religion. Look at what's happening to Christianity in the US.

Re: France's baby bust

#16

Post by adaml_623 »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #7
izacus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see some citation for that since most of the ultra conservative countries around the world are failing states both economically and societally. Everything from Iran, Iraq to European Hungaries to US bible belt states, you can pretty much directly map failure to fringe conservatism.

I am not talking about fringe, weird, or internationally blockaded societies, but ones like the comparison of Provence and Brittany of the article.

Can you quickly specify what you mean by successful. And which "conservative" societies you were thinking of as successful

Re: France's baby bust

#17

Post by woodruffw »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #12
woodruffw wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is contradicted by all available evidence: “traditional” societies succeed when they industrialize and liberalize. France was 20% of Europe’s population in 1700, but there is no meaningful sense in which the average French subject was “succeeding” in 1700.

The comparison of the article is pretty clear. Secularism and liberalisation led to plummeting birth rates. This is to what I am referring.

That’s not a great metric of success, as pointed out in TFA: most places with high birth rates have them because environmental pressures demand it. Remove the pressure (excess child mortality), and the social factors that justify high birthrates disappear.

We’re presumably in agreement that imposing excess infant mortality is not a good idea.

Re: France's baby bust

#18

Post by mamonster »

langsoul-com wrote: post #6

The book, "shall the religious inherit the world" is relevant. I'd be interested what happens when general birthrate declines and a religious group, that massively encourages tons of children, take larger voting percentages.

You will get to see this within the next 50-60 years in Israel. AFAIK the expectation is that Haredi+Israeli Arabs will be 50% of the population by like 2070.

Re: France's baby bust

#19

Post by eastbound »

langsoul-com wrote: post #6

The book, "shall the religious inherit the world" is relevant. I'd be interested what happens when general birthrate declines and a religious group, that massively encourages tons of children, take larger voting percentages.

I don’t understand: Are you suggesting that it’s what France is currently experimenting, or did it not fall into your radar that France is currently experiencing this?

If not, I’d be interested if you look at birthrate by religion in France (and please add stats of bullying at school if you find them) and see whether it fits your expected model.

Re: France's baby bust

#20

Post by woodruffw »

langsoul-com wrote: post #6

The book, "shall the religious inherit the world" is relevant. I'd be interested what happens when general birthrate declines and a religious group, that massively encourages tons of children, take larger voting percentages.

There are a handful of modern religious and fundamentalist groups that sociologists study for this purpose: Mormons, ultra-orthodox Jews, evangelicals, etc.

The interesting thing about these groups is that they exhibit “carrying limits”: they get to particular community sizes and begin to experience attrition through secularization.

Post reply on HN