[toomuchtodo]

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/08/hispanic-...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/fewer-latino-births-deat...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/us/us-birthrate-hispanics...

https://ifstudies.org/blog/5-8-million-fewer-babies-americas...

Interestingly, in the US, you find that the birth rate of all races converge. Why? Educated, empowered women have less children or no children, and in general delay childbearing. Immigrant fertility is higher, but settles back down after a generation or two.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#empowerment-of-wom...

> The level of education in a society – of women in particular – is one of the most important predictors for the number of children families have.

[rayiner]

> Interestingly, in the US, you find that the birth rate of all races converge.

Because white (European) American individualist culture is inexorable in America. It’s in the water, you can’t avoid it. But the question is, as the white population collapses, will that continue to be true?

> Why? Educated, empowered women have less children or no children, and in general delay childbearing.

Why do you assume it has to do with education rather than other cultural traits? Muslim American women for example are more educated than white women, but have more kids.

At least in that culture, the difference isn’t education, it’s that having children is necessary for acceptance and respectability in Muslim society, and moreover children are socialized to care very much about those things. It’s not like with white Americans who are islands to themselves and don’t play by anyone’s rules.

[toomuchtodo]

> Why do you assume it has to do with education rather than other cultural traits? Muslim American women for example are more educated than white women, but have more kids.

Education and empowerment overrides cultural pressure.

> As in the rest of the world, fertility rates in countries with Muslim-majority populations are directly related to educational attainment. Women tend to delay childbearing when they attain higher levels of education.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-th...

(no assumptions here, just good 'ol data)

[rayiner]

You’re mixing up becoming more culturally white/westernized with education. There’s often a correlation, both in immigrant groups and abroad, but the two things are distinct. Among the asian immigrants I know, for example, the kids aren’t any more educated than the parents (because skilled immigration already filters for people with graduate degrees, etc.) But they’re much less likely to conform to social structures.

[oblio]

In France Muslims trend towards having fewer kids after 1-2 generations.

It's not a "White trait", whatever that even means, it's a personal freedom trait.

[lotsofpulp]

You and rayiner are sort of in agreement, although I also disagree with the labeling of “white (European) American individualist culture is inexorable in America.”

Specifically,

> it’s that having children is necessary for acceptance and respectability in Muslim society, and moreover children are socialized to care very much about those things.

Replace Muslim with “more orthodox or cultish Muslims/Jews/Christians/Mormoms/etc”

In any case, the current and previous older generations that had fewer kids will not feel the consequences, due to the momentum of population growth, but all these social safety net and retirement benefits like pensions and healthcare don’t come from thin air.

While one way to incentivize having kids is belonging to a tribe like rayiner described, the other could be removing those old age benefits so that the cost of not having kids is (potentially) higher. Obviously, governments can promise all the benefits they want, but there is no delivering them if there are no hands to do the work (and I doubt innovation in automation will outpace declines in labor force).

[oblio]

Based on their subsequent reply, no, we're not at all in agreement. See the other subthread.

[lotsofpulp]

Yes, seems I was wrong about that.

[rayiner]

“Personal freedom” is a white cultural concept. It’s not indigenous to any non-European culture.

[exBarrelSpoiler]

Amartya Sen, "Human Rights and Asian Values," The New Republic, July 14-July 21, 1997

> In Buddhist tradition, great importance is attached to freedom, and the traditions of earlier Indian thinking to which Buddhist thoughts relate allow much room for volition and free choice. Nobility of conduct has to be achieved in freedom, and even the ideas of liberation (such as moksha) include this feature. The presence of these elements in Buddhist thought does not obliterate the importance of the discipline emphasized by Confucianism, but it would be a mistake to take Confucianism to be the only tradition in Asia-or in China. Since so much of the contemporary authoritarian interpretation of Asian values concentrates on Confucianism, this diversity is particularly worth emphasizing.

Indeed, the reading of Confucianism that is now standard among authoritarian champions of Asian values does less than justice to Confucius's own teachings, to which Simon Leys has recently drawn attention. Confucius did not recommend blind allegiance to the state. When Zilu asks him "how to serve a prince," Confucius replies: "Tell him the truth even if it offends him." The censors in Singapore or Beijing would take a very different view. Confucius is not averse to practical caution and tact, but he does not forgo the recommendation to oppose a bad government. "When the [good] way prevails in the state, speak boldly and act boldly. When the state has lost the way, act boldly and speak softly."

Indeed, Confucius clearly points to the fact that the two pillars of the imagined edifice of Asian values, loyalty to family and obedience to the state, can be severely in conflict with each other. The Governor of She told Confucius, "Among my people, there is a man of unbending integrity: when his father stole a sheep, he denounced him." To this, Confucius replied: "Among my people, men of integrity do things differently: a father covers up for his son, a son covers up for his father-and there is integrity in what they do."

> In many ways, the most interesting articulation of the need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the writings of the emperor Ashoka in the third century B.C. Ashoka commanded a larger Indian empire than any other Indian king (including the Moghuls, and even the Raj, if we omit the native states that the British let be). He turned his attention to public ethics and enlightened politics after being horrified by the carnage that he witnessed in his own victorious battle against the king of Kalinga, in what is now Orissa.

The emperor converted to Buddhism. He helped to make it a world religion by sending emissaries abroad with the Buddhist message to East and West, and he covered the country with stone inscriptions describing forms of good life and the nature of good government. The inscriptions give a special importance to tolerance of diversity. The edict (now numbered XII) at Erragudi, for example, puts the issue thus: ... a man must not do reverence to his own sect or disparage that of another man without reason. Depreciation should be for specific reason only, because the sects of other people all deserve reverence for one reason or another.

By thus acting, a man exalts his own sect, and at the same time does service to the sects of other people. By acting contrariwise, a man hurts his own sect, and does disservice to the sects of other people. For he who does reverence to his own sect while disparaging the sects of others wholly from attachment to his own, with intent to enhance the splendour of his own sect, in reality by such conduct inflicts the severest injury on his own sect.

The importance of tolerance is emphasized in these edicts from the third century B.C.-their importance as public policy by the government and as advice for the behavior of citizens toward each other.

About the domain and the jurisdiction of tolerance, Ashoka was a universalist. He demanded this for all, including those whom he described as "forest people," the tribal population living in pre-agricultural economic formations. Condemning his own conduct before his conversion, Ashoka notes that in the war in Kalinga "men and animals numbering one hundred and fifty thousands were carried away [captive] from that [defeated] kingdom." He goes on to state that the slaughter or the taking of prisoners "of even a hundredth or thousandth part of all those people who were slain or died or were carried away [captive] at that time in Kalinga is now considered very deplorable" by him. Indeed, he proceeds to assert that now he believes that "even if [a person] should wrong him, that [offense] would be forgiven if it is possible to forgive it." The object of his government is described as "non-injury, restraint, impartiality, and mild behavior" applied "to all creatures."

Ashoka's championing of egalitarianism and universal tolerance may appear un-Asian to some commentators, but his views are firmly rooted in lines of analysis already in vogue in intellectual Buddhist circles in India in the preceding centuries.

> As the year 1000 in the Muslim Hijra calendar was reached in 1591-92, there was excitement about it in Delhi and Agra (not unlike what is happening now, as the Christian year 2000 approaches). Akbar issued various enactments at this juncture of history, and these focused inter alia on religious tolerance, including the following:

No man should be interfered with on account of religion, and anyone [is] to be allowed to go over to a religion he pleased. If a Hindu, when a child or otherwise, had been made a Muslim against his will, he is to be allowed, if he pleased, to go back to the religion of his fathers.

https://histheory.tripod.com/Human_Rights_Amartya.html

Dag Herbjørnsrud, "The African Enlightenment", Aeon

> For two years, until the death of the king in September 1632, Yacob remained in the cave as a hermit, visiting only the nearby market to get food. In the cave, he developed his new, rationalist philosophy. He believed in the supremacy of reason, and that all humans – male and female – are created equal. He argued against slavery, critiqued all established religions and doctrines, and combined these views with a personal belief in a theistic Creator, reasoning that the world’s order makes that the most rational option.

In short: many of the highest ideals of the later European Enlightenment had been conceived and summarised by one man, working in an Ethiopian cave from 1630 to 1632. Yacob’s reason-based philosophy is presented in his main work, Hatäta (meaning ‘the enquiry’). The book was written down in 1667 on the insistence of his student, Walda Heywat, who himself wrote a more practically oriented Hatäta. Today, 350 years later, it’s hard to find a copy of Yacob’s book. The only translation into English was done in 1976, by the Canadian professor and priest Claude Sumner. He published it as part of a five-volume work on Ethiopian philosophy, with the far-from-commercial Commercial Printing Press in Addis Ababa. The book has been translated into German, and last year into Norwegian, but an English version is still basically unavailable.

> Yacob is also more enlightened than his Enlightenment peers when it comes to slavery. In chapter five, he argues against the idea that one can ‘go and buy a man as if he were an animal’. That is because all humans are created equal and with the capacity to reason. Hence, he also puts forward a universal argument against discrimination based on reason:

>> All men are equal in the presence of God; and all are intelligent, since they are his creatures; he did not assign one people for life, another for death, one for mercy, another for judgment. Our reason teaches us that this sort of discrimination cannot exist.

https://aeon.co/essays/yacob-and-amo-africas-precursors-to-l...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16199733

[oblio]

LOL.

"Personal freedom" was not indigenous to Europe, either.

It's an acquired trait.

[exBarrelSpoiler]

How do you explain what happens outside of America?

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

[rayiner]

Massive family planning campaigns, heavily funded by western countries, to change the culture around having children. (My dad does exactly that for a living.) In Asia you now have multiple generations of people who associate having big families with poverty and backwardness.

[exBarrelSpoiler]

Sounds like culture doesn't mean much when even the lands where the culture originated from willingly discard the cultural elements that lead to more children and larger families, even while preserving other elements.

Consider the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNCBRTINIRN

https://www.dw.com/en/iran-birth-rate-decline/a-54371973

So much for white Americans and westerners.