[SpicyLemonZest]

I don’t see why we would expect plentiful resources to lead to more kids. People today have fewer kids than they did 100 years ago, despite having many more material resources.

I’m also not sure that population decline would lead to plentiful resources in a sense that matters. Do people in Detroit feel rich because houses are so plentiful after the 1950s population high?

[from-nibly]

it's because now having kids means sharing your resources, where 100 years ago having more kids meant expanding your resources.

[big-green-man]

So we have turned an asset into a liability and are surprised when the change in incentive has predictable outcomes.