France's baby bust
worksinprogress.co
France's baby bust
1–10 of 263 posts
Re: France's baby bust
#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.
Re: France's baby bust
#3TLDR:
> 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
Re: France's baby bust
#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.
Are we cursed to an eternal dance between perceived personal liberty and societal success ?
Re: France's baby bust
#5So, 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…
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.
Re: France's baby bust
#6The 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.
Re: France's baby bust
#7So, 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…
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.
Re: France's baby bust
#8So, 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.
Re: France's baby bust
#9> 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 the sheer mass of the population. There’s a reason why politicians work to increase population: It increases levied taxes. The system wouldn’t be balanced with stable population.
But even if we equate population with domination, is dominating the world what we want?
As for the “but they’ll pay your retirements!” argument, well, retirement-by-next-generation-paying is a pyramid scheme and the elderly should have thought of it before they set it up.
Re: France's baby bust
#10> 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.
I think this was intended, to show the relative decline of the birthrates compared to other countries at the time which was the point of the data analysis