European numbers are largely controlled by Islamic populations. Pew carried out an interesting study [1] on the numbers. The Islamic fertility rate in France is 2.9, the non-Islamic fertility rate is 1.9. In Sweden it's 2.8 vs 1.8. There is no European country with a non-Islamic fertility rate over 2. Ireland is the highest at exactly 2.0.
The fact that these extreme trends exist even within Western countries, emphasize that it's primarily a cultural issue. I am not implying the West should adopt Islamic social views, but the irony is that we will end doing exactly that if nothing changes simply because they are reproducing in healthy numbers while non-Islamic groups are not.
[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-grow...
what caused the culture in europe to change?
the islamic population in europe is very young. first and second generation mostly. if living standards and education are the cause it's going to take a few more generations before the effect of that set in.
Obviously the middle class individuals could afford to have children and make it work if they genuinely wanted to do so, but it might be uncomfortable and require some sacrifice. So it all comes down to priorities. So the question isn't why people stopped having children, but why priorities shifted so radically away from what is ultimately the most fundamentally important responsibility of humanity?
In the US from 1960-1980 many things happened. And one of these was a precipitous decline in fertility rates, plummeting by about 50% to where it would roughly stay to present day. It's quite unfortunate so many things happened in such a short time frame, because it enables one to create a reasonably compelling case for nearly any argument, including the common economic and educational (though those have many issues outside of this time frame).
One thing that also happened during that period was a dramatic decline in religiosity. And IMO that left a vacuum for meaning in society. And that vacuum seems to have been filled, for most, by indulgent hedonism that would gradually transition into consumerism. Drugs, the "sexual revolution", and various other issues skyrocketed during this period. This would further transition into the endless pursuit of the ever more expensive next shiny thing, be those Jordans, iThing, or exotic/expensive selfies for social media image crafting.
And what could be more antithetical to this shift in values and priorities than doing something that "might be uncomfortable and require some sacrifice"? There's certainly nothing more rewarding or fulfilling than raising a family, but that reward comes at immense cost and time.
---
Ok, I wanted to hit more on how this hypothesis can also work as a casual explanation for the commonly observed correlations (education, income, etc) related to lower birth rates, but this post is already getting far longer than intended.
The question is do we think that individual decisions should be allowed to kill our society?
If you think it's acceptable to let women do so then do you think men ought to be able to refuse conscription without any consequence in a time of war?
what is the alternative to individual decisions? force women to have children?
that's not the kind of world i want to live in.
i think there are a few tv series that show where that leads to.
no, the solution is to help families with children, so that the children are not a burden, but something to enjoy and look forward to.
the USA especially is famously failing at that. european countries are doing better, but obviously way more needs to be done.
as for conscription. we should aim to stop all wars. there should be no tolerance for any aggression today. any aggression should be stopped by a global, neutral police force without exception.
Pain is the least problem of child birth. If you want to realize what childbirth can do to a womans body look up what a prolapsed uterus is. That women aren't having that discussion with you probably means that women just don't want to have children with you.
>what is the alternative to individual decisions? force women to have children?
If a society has conscription for men yes. Alternatively you can have both men and women reject the social contract and only use society as a way to make money before it collapses. We don't live in a fairy tale, we don't all get to ride off into the sunset.
Are you being purposefully obtuse? The pain of giving birth is the least damaging long term effect of getting pregnant.
pain of childbirth and any of the negative after effects are not often a topic, which suggests that they are not a common reason for not wanting children, and so that can hardly be the cause for the birthrate to drop
france has the highest birthrate in europe, followed by ireland and sweden. i don't know what ireland and sweden are doing, but i understand that france offers infant daycare, allowing more parents to work.
as for this article, it specifically talks about families getting a third child when they already have two in car-seat age. it looks to me that the problem is not cost, but possibly the fact that many cars can't fit three car seats in the back.
this comment from the original discussion, and the study authors response also seem to support that idea:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24648548